Going The Distance - Foreign National Prisoners

CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
About the Author ii
Foreword iii
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. INTRODUCTION 5
3. THE EXPERIENCES OF FOREIGN NATIONAL PRISONERS 7
3.1 Sources of Evidence 7
3.2 The Messages of the Research 8
3.3 Supporting Evidence from the Six Research Prisons 12
4. A GOOD PRACTICE APPROACH 15
4.1 Main Elements of the Wandsworth Approach 15
4.2 Underlying Principles of the Approach 16
5. THE RESEARCH 19
5.1 Purpose 19
5.2 Method and Research Prisons 19
5.3 The Interview Format 19
5.4 The Prisons 20
5.5 Nature of Research Samples 21
5.6 Results 22
6. KEY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PRISON 31
SERVICE ON A NATIONAL AND AREA LEVEL
6.1 Questions and Themes 31
6.2 Summary of Area and National Recommendations 38
7. RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL 41
ESTABLISHMENTS
7.1 The Refined Model 41
8. CONCLUDING REMARKS 45
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Number of Foreign National Prisoners by 47
Establishment, January 2004
Appendix II Prison Population by Nationality, January 2004 50
Appendix III Information for Foreign Nationals 52
Appendix IV How to use Language Line 56
Appendix V Foreign National Orderly Assessment Sheet 57
REFERENCES 58
SUGGESTED FURTHER READING 60
For their invaluable advice on earlier drafts of this report, I would like to thank Tim Newell
and Arthur de Frisching from the Butler Trust; Steve Porch and Wayne Dastur from Prison
Service Headquarters; Liz Dixon, Nick Hammond and Rosemary Abernethy from London
Probation Area; Steve Mason from the Detention Advice Service; Joe Levenson from
Rethinking Crime and Punishment; and Juliet Lyon and Diana Ruthven from the Prison
Reform Trust.
I am grateful to Governors Stephen Rimmer, Jim Heavens and Fiona Radford for allowing me
the time to complete the research during my time at HMP Wandsworth; to Steve Bass,
formerly at Prison Service Headquarters, for his support during the early stages of the work;
to David Reaich and Mary Pilgrim from London Probation Area, for their support throughout
the last two years; and to the Butler Trust for the award that made the whole thing possible. I
am especially indebted to the Prison Reform Trust for its interest in publishing this report, and
to the staff and prisoners who generously and enthusiastically contributed to the research.
Finally, the inspiration for much of the work described in this report has been the men I
worked alongside in their roles as foreign national orderlies. Their dedication and
achievements in the most difficult of settings are the embodiment of the rehabilitative ideal. It
was the deepest privilege to witness the tremendous contribution they were able to make to
the prison community - when given the chance.
The Prison Reform Trust is grateful to the Sir James Reckitt Charity for supporting the
publication of this report.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Hindpal Singh Bhui was a probation officer and the Foreign Nationals Co-ordinator at HMP
Wandsworth between May 1999 and January 2004. He is also a senior lecturer in Criminal
Justice at the University of Hertfordshire. He has been editor of The Probation Journal: The
Journal of Community and Criminal Justice (Sage Publications and NAPO) since 1997, and co-
editor of Issues in Community and Criminal Justice Monograph Series (NAPO) since 2001.
In February 2004 he was appointed as an Inspector for HM Inspectorate of Prisons. He
specialises in inspection of the immigration detention estate and foreign national prisoners,
and holds the policy lead on foreign national prisoners. Although up-dated in July 2004, the
report was completed prior to this appointment and does not necessarily reflect
Inspectorate policy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ii
FOREWORD
As a prison governor, and more recently as the area manager for London, I have witnessed at
first hand the difficulties posed for prison staff struggling to respond to the needs of increasing
numbers of foreign national prisoners.
According to a recent Prison Reform Trust briefing, the last ten years have seen a 152 per
cent increase in foreign national prisoners, with no corresponding increase in resources or
training for the staff who need to deal with them on an everyday basis. And this increase
shows no signs of abating.
Against the odds, prison staff and voluntary sector and community-based organisations have
done their best to arrange for translations, engage interpreters and maintain some contact
with the families. This, despite the lack of Prison Service policy or strategy, or accessible
information for staff or prisoners. Some prisons have developed their own local policies,
sourced their own community support and have coped well with this influx of foreign
national prisoners.
But a piecemeal approach is not good enough in todays prisons where one in eight people
held is a foreign national prisoner. What staff and others working in the field really need is
policy direction and guidance developed by those with first-hand experience of working with
this group of prisoners.
As the area manager for Wandsworth Prison I have long been aware of Hindpal Singh Bhuis
substantial work as a probation officer with foreign national prisoners. Given the dearth of
information on the needs of this group, his expertise and the contacts he built up, quickly
became a resource for other staff throughout England and Wales. A particular strength of his
approach was the way in which he succeeded in drawing on the strengths and skills of this
group and involved them in helping and advising one another. It was no surprise when the
Butler Trust recognised the value of his work and supported him to formulate his experience
and develop a guide for others.
This guide to developing policy and practice with foreign national prisoners will go some way
to meeting the needs of staff left to their own devices about how to respond to this group in
their population.
At last there is some recognition of the needs of foreign national prisoners, who, because they
are not a control problem, are so frequently overlooked.
This guide makes an important contribution to a developing body of knowledge on this
subject. It will inform the work of staff across the prison estate. Its production should prompt
the Prison Service to develop an effective strategic policy response to the foreign national
prisoners for whom it is responsible.
Bill Duff
iii
1
Going The Distance: Developing Effective
Policy and Practice with Foreign National
Prisoners
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In January 2004 foreign national prisoners constituted 12 per cent of the prison population of
England and Wales. In spite of this, there is a wealth of evidence to show that the Prison
Services awareness of and response to the problems they face is generally inadequate. This
report draws on published evidence and original research conducted in seven prisons with
large foreign national prisoner populations. The report considers three central questions:
1. What are the main experiences and needs of foreign national prisoners?
2. What can be learned from the successful foreign national strategy originally developed
in HMP Wandsworth?
3. More generally, what should the Prison Service do to promote effective local and
national policy and practice with foreign national prisoners?
1. Main experiences and needs of foreign national prisoners
Six broad issues are identified as being particularly pertinent to the foreign national prisoner
population: a lack of information (e.g. about the legal or prison system); immigration-related
problems (e.g. deportation orders and indefinite detention by the Immigration Service);
language barriers (which exacerbated all other problems); isolation (particularly from distant
families); a lack of preparation for release; and treatment that showed contempt for their
humanity and their human rights, especially racist and disrespectful staff attitudes. Many of
these problems overlap to some degree.
2. Relevance of the work developed at HMP Wandsworth
Chapter four of the report describes the main principles of the work developed in
Wandsworth prison over a period of four years. This includes a system of foreign national
groups, foreign national prisoner orderlies, regular evaluation of strategy, a foreign national
committee and a core team. Chapter five reports the results of group and individual
interviews with 19 staff and 58 prisoners in the research prisons. Their opinions were sought
on the relevance of the approach to their particular prisons and on how it might usefully be
developed into a more flexible blueprint for policy and practice development across the
prison estate.
Despite evidence of successful past projects and considerable individual commitment, none of
the research prisons had an existing long-term strategy for work with foreign national
prisoners, and staff were often frustrated by a lack of knowledge and guidance. There was
almost total support in principle for the establishment of the key elements of the
Wandsworth approach, but staff and prisoners were commonly concerned about limited staff
resources and the hostility and/or obstructiveness of some staff to any form of work with
foreign nationals. However, overall, there was no doubt that with a degree of organisation and
will, an effective strategy for work with foreign national prisoners could be developed in each
of the research prisons. Indeed, some had already adopted - and adapted - key aspects of the
Wandsworth approach.
2 Going The Distance: Developing Effective Policy and Practice with Foreign National Prisoners
3. Recommendations for change
Chapter six discusses key themes emerging from the research and makes eight
recommendations for action at the area and national levels. They are:
1. Guidelines on local policy and practice with foreign national prisoners should be issued
by Prison Service Headquarters.
2. Auditable standards based on those guidelines should be developed to motivate
action in individual prisons, and to encourage and enable managers to give foreign
national work a higher degree of priority in their business plans (both a national and
area responsibility).
3. Consideration should be given to convening staff liaison forums on an area basis, to allow
front-line staff to share information and resources, and to discuss issues relating to their
work with foreign national prisoners.
4. Areas should give consideration to appointing a foreign national policy/practice advisor,
especially during the strategy development phase; such an advisor might be an
experienced co-ordinator from one of the prisons in the local area.
5. Research on the use of Language Line should be instituted by the centre.
6. Statistics relating to the incidence of self harm amongst foreign national prisoners
should be gathered systematically to establish if a particular response is required to
tackle this issue.
7. Research on the access of foreign national prisoners to offending behaviour programmes,
and the viability of setting up programmes for drug importers, should be instituted by
the centre.
8. Advice on training, developed from guidelines for foreign national policy and practice,
should be issued from the centre.
9. Much of the above should be included in a distinct Prison Service Order which makes it
clear that the work of each establishment relates to a coherent overall Prison Service
foreign national strategy. Without such guidance from headquarters, it seems unlikely
that sustainable and effective practice can replace the myriad of unco-ordinated short-
term and short-lived initiatives that currently predominate in relation to work with
foreign national prisoners.
Chapter seven outlines proposed guidelines for individual establishments wanting to establish
effective models of work with foreign national prisoners. It is suggested that these guidelines
could be incorporated into the Prison Service Order. They are:
1. Every prison should formulate a coherent strategy to meet the needs of foreign national
prisoners.That strategy should be embedded within the prisons wider diversity strategy.
2. Each establishment with significant numbers of foreign national prisoners should form a
foreign nationals committee to formulate, support and oversee the strategy. It should be
chaired by a senior governor and have a wide-ranging membership. If there are
insufficient foreign nationals to justify a full separate committee, a distinct sub-committee
of the race relations committee should be formed.
3. Foreign national support and information groups should be instituted by almost all
prisons, even if there are no more than a handful of foreign national prisoners.
Executive Summary 3
4. Prisons with a number of deportees should give serious consideration to obtaining the
assistance of a specialist and accredited immigration advice service. At the very least,
communication with such agencies should be established, and their contact details
should be easily available to staff and prisoners.
5. All prisons should consider employing foreign national orderlies who can represent and
assist other foreign nationals and be part of the team responsible for implementing the
foreign nationals strategy.
6. Liaison officers should be given protected time to work with foreign national prisoners.
7. A foreign national co-ordinator should be employed wherever possible, to provide central
co-ordination and be the driving force behind the strategy.
8. The effectiveness of the foreign nationals strategy should be measured by means of
regular evaluation that incorporates the views of prisoners themselves.
9. Each prison should develop local training programmes, based on guidelines issued from
the centre, for all staff and orderlies.
Finally, if the recommendations of this report are followed, and guidelines for foreign national
work in prisons are issued, a long-term goal would be to evaluate how far policy and practice
improves wherever they are implemented. Such an evaluation would be the most effective
test of the value of the strategic approach described here.
5
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence, particularly from HM Inspectorate of Prisons
reports, to show that the Prison Services awareness of and response to the distinct needs of
foreign nationals is generally inadequate.Yet there are foreign national prisoners from diverse
backgrounds in nearly every Prison Service establishment in England and Wales (see appendix
1 and 11). Of a prison population on 31st January 2004 of 73,440, 8,937 were recorded as
foreign nationals, including over 900 women. The foreign national population now constitutes
about 12 per cent of the prison population and is growing year on year; the equivalent figure
for June 2002 was 7,638 foreign national prisoners, making up just under 11 per cent of the
population. Furthermore, these figures may well underestimate the actual number: at the end
of January 2004, 1,200 people in prison were recorded as being of unknown nationality and, if
the experience in Wandsworth prison was to be generally true, about a fifth of this number
could be foreign nationals.
It is against this background that the project reported on here was conceived. The main aim
was to test out a simple theory: that the successful approach developed in HMP
Wandsworth to address the specific needs of foreign national prisoners could, with some
variation, be equally effective in other prisons. If this proposition turned out to be true, a
specific objective was then to propose guidelines for developing services for foreign national
prisoners on a national and local basis.
Although this paper draws on a wide range of sources, the research at the heart of the
project is based on group and individual interviews with a range of staff and prisoners in six
prisons in and around London. It aimed to:
i) Establish the level of existing provision for foreign national prisoners in the research
prisons;
ii) Obtain the views of staff and prisoners on the evidence-led approach to work with
foreign nationals developed in Wandsworth Prison; and,
iii) Obtain their views on the potential obstacles to such an approach in their prisons.
The project as a whole had the following broader aims:
a) To summarise the main lessons of existing research and other literature on the
experiences of foreign national prisoners (see chapter three). Given the wealth of
information about the main problems facing foreign nationals, it was not thought
necessary to conduct more research which would almost certainly have duplicated
those earlier findings. However, though not explicitly sought, this information was freely
provided by most interviewees and their views are therefore reported here. The findings
from annual surveys of foreign national prisoners in Wandsworth, conducted over a
period of three years, are also incorporated into the discussion.
b) To define and describe basic principles for effective work with foreign national prisoners
as developed in Wandsworth Prison. (See chapter four)
c) To refine the original approach in the light of research in other prisons, and articulate a
more comprehensive framework for policy and practice development. The refined model
was intended to be sufficiently flexible to be adaptable to different prison contexts (e.g. in
prisons with limited resources or few foreign nationals). (See chapters 5-7)
2. INTRODUCTION
d) To make evidence-based recommendations for Prison Service policy and practice
development. This was to include a consideration of training, audit and evaluation
implications at local, area and national levels. (See chapters 6 and 7)
e) To assist in the development of a strategic London-wide approach and implementation
of the model. This issue is not discussed here
1
.
All of these aims have, to varying degrees, been achieved. It was originally intended that the
results of this research would contribute evidence-based guidance to a Prison Service Order
on foreign nationals or a foreign national section of a Prison Service Order on Race Relations.
The Prison Services current position is that such guidance is not required.
1 This is not a relevant issue for this report. However, after achieving the formal purpose of the interviews, staff in every prison were, without exception, interested in discussing
the implementation of the approach in their establishments. A national conference was held at HMP Wandsworth in March 2003 to promote constructive debate and encourage
use of the model. A large proportion of the delegates were from London prisons, and many of the elements of the original model were implemented in these establishments. It
is to be hoped that a more formal and consistent implementation of the model in a coherent London-wide approach can be encouraged through the distribution of this report.
7
3.1 Sources of Evidence
This chapter draws on existing research, on prisoner surveys conducted in Wandsworth
Prison between 2000 and 2002, and on interviews with staff and prisoners in six other
prisons in or near London.
a) Existing research: There is a limited but consistent body of research on the particular
problems faced by foreign nationals in the prison system (e.g. Ellis, 1998; Green, 1998, 1991;
Pourgourides et al, 1996; Cheney, 1993; Tarzi and Hedges, 1990, 1993; ACOP, 1990). This is
supplemented by valuable data in a number of reports produced by HM Chief Inspectorate of
Prisons (see references for recommended reports, 1995-2003).
b) Wandsworth surveys: An additional source of information used for the purposes of this
section is Wandsworth Prisons annual prisoner evaluation exercise. This exercise is an integral
part of the Wandsworth strategy, which was conceived as a sustainable, evidence-led
approach to work with foreign national prisoners. The strategy recognises that the difficulties
faced by prisoners, and progress in resolving these difficulties, can only be identified and
measured with reference to foreign national prisoners themselves. The views of staff are
valuable, but susceptible to wishful thinking or misconceptions about the degree to which
their organisation has moved forward. While it could equally be argued that prisoners (who
are generally unhappy about their incarceration) tend towards negativity, their perceptions of
policies and practices intended to provide them with an improved regime are more defensible
measures of progress.
Consequently, in Wandsworth, the evidence of progress or lack of it has come largely from
the prisoners themselves, as a result of confidential questionnaires distributed over a period of
3-5 months every year (Wandsworth was in the process of conducting its fourth such exercise
at the time that this report was written).This has been supplemented by the findings of three
HMCI Prisons reports published between 1999 and 2003 (HMCIP 1999, 2001a, 2003d).
There are two questionnaires: one asks about the prisoners views of the overall treatment of
foreign nationals; the other asks about the helpfulness of the foreign national groups. Although
the questionnaires are in English, prisoners who are not confident with the language are
assisted by the foreign national orderlies (see chapter 5) and many are helped by friends
during and after group sessions. Over 150 questionnaires were completed between 2000
and 2002, and they have contributed hugely to knowledge about the problems faced by
foreign national prisoners in Wandsworth, to an understanding amongst staff of the possible
solutions to those problems, and to the continuous development of the foreign nationals
strategy. The results of each evaluation exercise are collated and fed into the foreign national
committees deliberations on the main priorities for the following years strategy. Many of the
most progressive developments in Wandsworth have come about as a result of suggestions
made in the questionnaires (e.g. the recruitment of foreign national Listeners and the
expansion of group provision).
The questions asked on the first of these questionnaires are very relevant to this section of
the report, and are as follows:
What are the main problems you face as a foreign national in this prison?
Why do you think these problems happen?
3. THE EXPERIENCES OF FOREIGN
NATIONAL PRISONERS
How do you think they could be put right?
What, if anything, already helps you to deal with the problems you have?
Any other comments?
The questions asked in the second questionnaire have a lesser relevance to this section but
are still significant:
Have the groups informed you about the best way to deal with your immigration
problems?
Have the groups been useful to you in other ways?
Do you enjoy coming to the foreign nationals groups?
How do you think the groups could be improved?
Any other comments?
c) Research prisons: In chapter three, the results of the research in six prisons other than
Wandsworth are discussed in detail. Despite the fact that the group and individual interviews
held in these establishments were not intended to discuss what problems foreign national
prisoners were experiencing, in most cases it was appropriate and necessary for those
attending, to describe these before going on to other issues. Unsurprisingly, the range of
issues raised by them were similar to those described above. They are reported below.
The main themes emerging from the questionnaires and the wider research will now be
discussed.
3.2 The Messages of the Research
There is little doubt that prison staff are generally unaware of the very distinct needs of
foreign national prisoners, and that policy and practice provision is inconsistent and generally
sub-standard (e.g. see HMIP, 2001, 2002a, 2002b, 2003a; Cheney, 1993; Bhui, 1995). It is striking
to see the degree to which similar issues and conclusions recur in inspection reports - for
example, in HMP Birmingham, the inspectors concluded that With regard to the issues for
foreign national prisoners, little had been done to improve the situation for this group (HMIP,
2002a, para. 3.38); in HMP Parc, The establishment had no formal policy or procedures
concerning the needs of foreign national prisoners in its care (HMIP, 2003b, para. 3.57); in
Littlehey, the inspectors had concerns that the needs of foreign national prisoners, and
especially those for whom English was not their first language, were not being met fully (HMIP,
2003c para. 3.26). In The Weare, inspectors commented on the concerns of staff and
prisoners themselves about the particular difficulties faced by foreign nationals and the
widespread lack of understanding of, or provision for, them (HMIP, 2001).
These reports, the Wandsworth research, and other studies, have highlighted the following
major issues:
Lack of information - Foreign national prisoners experience particular problems as a result
of a lack of information about the legal system (e.g. Ruthven and Seward, 2002; Cheney, 1993).
Many are unaware of the workings of the criminal justice system in this country and have
problems understanding prison procedures and rules, the availability of support for people
who are suicidal, and basic entitlements. The three prisoners quoted below illustrate the
problem:
The Experiences of Foreign National Prisoners 9
Well as my first time in my life of coming into prison I do not know anything
about prison. I should say that I have problem at the moment. (Strategy
questionnaire, 2001)
Nothing is explained to you by prison staff hopeless information or lack of
information (Strategy questionnaire, 2001)
The main problem we all face in this prison is lack of information from prison
staff. Cannot understand them when these speak to you (Strategy
Those recommended for deportation or with other immigration-related problems, have an
urgent need for information, especially on appeals procedures and immigration law and
practice. The situation is particularly acute for detainees. As Ellis (1998) points out, in
detention centres they would be able to receive incoming calls and faxes, and would be able
to maintain better contact with legal representatives. In crowded prisons, access to phones is
a daily problem for many prisoners. A significant number of the deportees and other foreign
nationals completing the Wandsworth questionnaires stated that the foreign national groups
were vital sources of accurate information:
I am grateful for the assistance in my problem of asylum and I think that is
very important. (Groups questionnaire, 2000)
[the groups have given] me answers about my condition in this jail as a
foreign national - which nobody else (in my wing) could give to me. (Groups
Detention and other immigration-related problems - A second issue is the immigration
problems themselves. A significant number of foreign national prisoners face indefinite
Immigration Act detention at the end of their sentences. There are often long delays for
foreign nationals due for deportation, and many are at risk of being detained after the end of
their sentences, either because they are awaiting a decision from the Home Office, or because
arrangements have not been made for their removal. It is difficult to estimate accurately the
numbers of detainees being held at any one time solely under Immigration Act powers
because of inconsistent and inaccurate recording. This problem was identified as long ago as
1990 by Tarzi and Hedges, who correctly stated that the only way to establish a reasonably
accurate estimate of detainees was to systematically work through each prisoners file (see
also Ellis, 1998, pp.2-5).
A thorough snapshot survey of Immigration Act detention was conducted in Wandsworth in
January 2003. It showed that the prison held just over 75 people subject to immigration
holds, of whom 20 were detainees. Of these detainees, three were likely to be detained for
less than a month because of minor delays in obtaining travel documents or delayed action by
the Immigration Service. Five had already been detained for between 18 months and two
and a half years - one because he could not obtain travel documents from his embassy
(Indian); and the other three because they had been turned down for asylum, lost several
appeals and were in the process of making further applications under asylum and human
rights law. Most of the rest had been detained for between one month and six months, either
because of Immigration Service procedural delays or because of the difficulty of obtaining
travel documents from embassies.
The main reason that the figure of 20 was not far higher (in 1999 the comparable statistic was
nearly 40), was the proactive identification of immigration-related need and the provision of
specialist assistance from an accredited immigration advice agency, the Detention Advice
Service. The task of contacting immigration is shared between the DAS worker (who works
intensively on the most complicated and urgent cases), the foreign nationals co-ordinator and
the executive officer in the Inmate Administration Department who takes personal
responsibility for all immigration-related communications.
Language barriers - A third issue that is consistently identified relates to language barriers,
which can exacerbate all other problems. Respondents to the Wandsworth surveys regularly
mention the frustration of being misunderstood by staff, of having little to read in their own
language, of missing out on basic provisions (e.g. showers, association and groups) on a daily
basis because they have not understood staff instructions or questions, and of insufficient ESOL
(English for Speakers of Other Languages) classes to help ameliorate language problems:
is more difficult for us, if you dont speak good English and you cant be
with someone from your origin. (Strategy questionnaire, 2002)
We are often dismissed for our requests by the prison officers because they
doesnt want to listen to us who have problems with explain ourselves in
English. (Strategy questionnaire, 2000)
we cant explain our needs [need] more class of English. (Strategy
Poor communication between staff and prisoners clearly has implications for risk of self-harm
assessment, good order and discipline, etc. Cheneys (1993) research shows that foreign
national prisoners are also often unusually fearful, not only of staff, but also of the system
because they do not understand it.
Isolation - A fourth issue is isolation from distant families and cultures (Richards et al, 1995,
1995a; Howard League, 1994; Cheney, 1993; Tarzi and Hedges, 1990, 1993). Foreign national
prisoners are more likely to be serving long sentences, often for drug importation (Green,
1998; Cheney, 1993) and to have few visits, so many have no way of gaining support other
than that which is available through the prison. Foreign national women significantly boost the
minority ethnic prison population, making up about 20 per cent of all women in prison, and
three-quarters of the female courier population. According to one study around 70 per cent
(Green, 1991) have children, come from poorer backgrounds than foreign national men, and
many explain their offending as a means of making a better life for their children. This study is
now dated, but Hibiscus (part of the Female Prisoners Welfare Project), the main voluntary
organisation working with women foreign nationals in this country, considers that the situation
has not changed significantly (personal communication from the Director of Hibiscus, 2003).
More recent research by the Prison Service also showed that around 60 per cent of women
in prison had children under the age of 18 or were pregnant (HM Prison Service, 1999).
Not surprisingly, depression and general mental health needs are often greater amongst
foreign national prisoners because of the additional strains they face in a foreign country and
criminal justice system (e.g. Paton and Jenkins, 2002; CVS Consultants and Migrant and
Refugee Communities Forum, 1999; Pourgourides et al, 1996). Some may have experienced
torture, persecution and abuse in their homelands. The mental health of detainees may be
particularly fragile as they can be held with little idea of their eventual release dates (Paton
and Jenkins, 2002; Pourgourides et al, 1996; Tarzi and Hedges, 1990). There is currently no
convincing published evidence of a heightened incidence of self-harm and suicide amongst
foreign national prisoners, but both common sense and anecdotal reports indicate the need
for research to establish whether or not this is an issue of wider concern. For example, prison
inspectors were told by a Race Relations Officer in HMP Birmingham that some 25 per cent
of foreign national prisoners received from court were already subject to risk of self-
harm/suicide procedures (HMIP, 2002a), and a number of prisoners filling out the
Wandsworth questionnaires vividly described the kind of pressures that can result in self-
harm. For example:
They [i.e. staff] are not communicate with us properly.They use them powers
to shut us out.Things can be better we are all human Some of these people
should not be working in prison, they stress us out too much.Thats the reason
some of us hang our self ... We need help. So we dont have to kill our self in
prison. (Strategy questionnaire, 2002)
Lack of preparation for release - Foreign national prisoners are often ill-prepared for
release because they do not have sufficiently good English to participate in pre-release classes
or, if they are to be deported, they may not be considered a priority for such provision. Many
are unable to access offending behaviour courses because of language problems and there are
very few courses specifically for drug importers, who make up a relatively large proportion of
foreign national prisoners. If deportation orders are served with little prior notice, there is
often little time to inform relatives or organise travel arrangements to home villages or towns.
Foreign nationals who are deported are also ineligible for discharge grants (see Bhui, 2004, for
more discussion of the resettlement needs of foreign national prisoners).
Lack of respect and racism - Another important recurrent theme is racism and lack of
respect from prison staff, experiences which are not exclusive to foreign nationals (Wilson,
2004). However, foreign national prisoners may experience them even more acutely as a
result of the other disadvantages described above. In response to the question What are the
main problems you face as a foreign national in this prison?, many questionnaires simply stated
discrimination or racism. Others were more detailed:
I find that nearly all the officers are racist and because they have not
travelled they think sun only rises from England and sets in England or
Scotland (Strategy questionnaire, 2002)
xenophobia and lack of respect for whom are different from others, either
by religion, appearance or by education. (Strategy questionnaire, 2000)
racial abuse mentally emotionally and physically. (Strategy questionnaire,
2001)
most important is: some of the officers treating inmates like animal. Some
of them are swearing like fuck off, fucking, bastard. If they say 5 word, 1 of
them bad word. (Strategy questionnaire, 2001)
Other issues - There are a number of other problems specific to foreign national prisoners
(e.g. lack of appropriate toiletries, dietary needs, etc.), which are discussed in more detail in
many of the HMIP reports and in the work of Cheney (1993) and Tarzi and Hedges (1990;
1992) in particular.
The following real life case study helps to illustrate many of the problems described above,
including immigration difficulties, isolation and discrimination as a result of language problems:
Mr A was an Iraqi Kurd who had been convicted of using false documentation to enter the
UK and sentenced to six months. He had rashly left the European country where his asylum
claim was still being processed and was arrested in England while en route to Canada, where
his wife and children had been given full refugee status. He accepted
his punishment.
His release date came and went. He had no idea why he was still being detained and had
no information he could understand. The Immigration Services detention notification arrived in
English, a language of which he still had only a very basic understanding. No one had made
an effort to speak to him in his own language and when he was finally spoken to using an
interpreter, he said it was the first time he had spoken his own language for four months. He
did not even know that there were newspapers or books available in his own language. An
officer would open his door each week and shout the word library, which is where he could
have found material in his own language; but as he didnt understand the word and was very
nervous anyway, having escaped persecution by one authority, he kept quiet and usually
stayed in his cell. He said he spent hours every day trying to imagine a time when he could
see his family again - he had not had any contact with them and became increasingly
depressed and eventually suicidal.
He was referred to a specialist worker - it took a few hours to establish the nature of his case
and to explain what could be done; a couple of days to link him with other prisoners who
could speak his language and to get him information and books he could understand; a week
or so to get a good immigration solicitor to argue his appeal; a month of liaison with the
Home Office until his file was acted upon, and another three weeks until he was finally given
temporary leave to enter the country pending a formal decision on his asylum application
(which turned out to be positive). He could not go back to the country in which he had first
applied because the time limit given for his return to that country had elapsed while he was
in prison.
This was a man who had escaped a genocidal regime, with a clear-cut case for asylum. He
had no previous convictions and had not been in any trouble until he decided to make his
own way to his family. He ended up serving double the amount of time to which the court
had sentenced him in prison, contrary to all principles of justice and equality. (Adapted from
case study given in Bhui, 2003)
3.3 Supporting Evidence from the Six Research Prisons
In chapter five, the results of the research in six prisons other than Wandsworth are discussed
in detail. Despite the fact that the group and individual interviews held in these
establishments were not intended to discuss what problems foreign national prisoners were
experiencing, in most cases it was appropriate and necessary for those attending to briefly
describe these before going on to other issues. The range of concerns raised by them was
similar to those described above, the only exception being that no one mentioned lack of
preparation for release. Examples are listed below:
Lack of information/specialist advice - Feltham prisoners said they had seen very little
in translation and had no knowledge of the specialist immigration advice worker who
visited the prison on a regular basis, even though some of the group had been in Feltham
for some months and had serious immigration problems. Prisoners at The Mount were
sceptical about the impartiality of the Immigration Officer who visited the prison once a
month - she is trying to get us deported - while prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs
complained of the low quality of legal advice and misinformation. One of the probation
officers in the Holloway group also commented that the induction process was far too
general, making no attempt to engage with the very particular issues faced by foreign
national women.
Immigration problems - Staff in Brixton and in Feltham mentioned the extreme difficulty of
knowing who to contact in the Immigration Service and then getting through to them on the
phone. Prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs and The Mount spoke of the high stress levels of
those experiencing immigration problems, especially if they were detained.
Language - Feltham and Wormwood Scrubs prisoners mentioned that filling in forms is a
very important part of prison life and they felt disadvantaged in this respect because of their
poor grasp of spoken or written English. The same groups complained about regularly
misunderstanding instructions. Feltham prisoners knew nothing about the Language Line
telephone interpreting service available to every prison as it had never in their knowledge
been used to speak to them or to their fellow prisoners. They commented that had they
known, they would have asked staff to use it to speak to them. Wormwood Scrubs and The
Mount prisoners complained of inadvertently breaking rules as a result of communication
problems. Prisoners in Holloway and Wormwood Scrubs mentioned how important ESOL
(English for Speakers of Other Languages) classes were to them.
Isolation - The women in Holloway were particularly concerned about their families abroad
and especially worried about their children. Extended separation from children was described
as a major stress for women who had anticipated being away for only a short period of time.
Having time to use phones and the expense of international calls was mentioned by prisoners
in nearly every prison. In Wormwood Scrubs, prisoners pointed out that time differences in
their home countries meant that they were often unable to speak to relatives who worked or
were asleep during the times that they could call them.
Lack of respect and racism - Brixton prisoners were particularly vociferous about staff
racism and linked this to other problems, e.g. lack of time on the telephones. One Brixton
prisoner referred to a different kind of racism to that experienced by black British [prisoners].
Prisoners in Brixton and Feltham talked more generally of a lack of respect from staff, with
one prisoner saying with some exasperation, Were foreign nationals - were also human
beings (Feltham prisoner). It is notable that Brixton is one of the prisons upon which part
two of the CREs investigation into racism into the Prison Service was focused (CRE, 2003b).
In common with part one (CRE, 2003a), which focused on the death of a young Asian man in
Feltham, it found that the Prison Service was guilty of unlawful racial discrimination.
The next chapter considers how some of the problems outlined in this chapter were tackled
in HMP Wandsworth.
15
This chapter briefly describes the nature and principles of the original approach to work with
foreign national prisoners developed in Wandsworth between 1999, when the Prisons
Inspectorate strongly condemned the lack of provision for foreign nationals (HMIP, 1999); and
2003, when the Inspectorate described work with foreign national prisoners in Wandsworth
as being the best in the country (press release accompanying 2003d). A previous report had
also praised highly the progress of the Wandsworth strategy (HMIP, 2001). The strategy was
intended to tackle in a co-ordinated, systematic way, the problems discussed in the previous
chapter. It has continued to develop, and this account is essentially a snapshot of what existed
at the close of November 2003.
The overriding objective of the Wandsworth foreign nationals strategy was to institutionalise it
to the point that it would become sustainable and not collapse if a single key individual
happened to leave. Foreign national strategies in other prisons have almost always faltered on
the departure of such individuals, who take with them crucial knowledge and expertise.
However, the intention is not to suggest that the Wandsworth approach could not be
substantially improved upon. The process of systematically thinking and writing about the
Wandsworth strategy during the preparation of this report has shown that many things could
have been done better. However, while much could be added, the research does suggest that
nothing should be taken away. In other words, the different elements of the approach and the
principles on which it is based, are sound. This conclusion is also supported by the high level
of support that the main elements of the approach (especially the foreign national groups and
the help provided through them) have received in prisoner feedback forms
2
.
4.1 Main elements of the Wandsworth approach
1. Regular foreign national groups were a major part of the approach and were intended to
provide information and support. There were 12-15 groups a month by November 2003,
with priority going to those identified as having immigration problems, prisoners at risk of self-
harm or suicide, and prisoners who were vulnerable for other reasons, such as language
problems, isolation or mental health problems. The general groups were open to all
nationalities on both the Main side of the prison and on the Vulnerable Prisoner Unit (mainly
sex offenders). There were groups for Spanish/Portuguese/Italian speakers and for Irish
travellers and other Irish people. The former group was supported by Vamos Juntos, a
partnership agency that usually works with Latin American prisoners. The latter group was
convened by a worker from a second partnership agency, the Brent Irish Advisory Service.
There was a regular immigration workshop for all those with acute and ongoing immigration
difficulties, who required more time than could be given in the larger groups. An advice
worker from the Detention Advice Service (DAS), the prisons major partnership agency for
foreign nationals and one of the most established independent immigration advice agencies,
convened this group and often attended larger groups. Governors, prison officers and staff
from many other departments regularly attended to discuss issues and answer questions,
providing a powerfully direct means of communication. The evaluation questionnaires
conducted every year since 2000 (see chapter 3), reflected strong support for the groups, and
an enduring appreciation for the assistance they provided.
4. A GOOD PRACTICE APPROACH
2 It is important to acknowledge that, as the author was involved in developing the original Wandsworth approach, it is inevitable that some
element of bias may be present in the judgements and the research responses. However, there was no alternative to this methodological
weakness as there was no alternative researcher. Every effort has been made to minimise any such bias.
2. A second core element was a range of information for foreign national prisoners and staff
working with foreign nationals, much of it translated. It included a locally developed manual
detailing, for example, the principles of the Wandsworth strategy, basic advice on immigration,
repatriation, deportation, detention and asylum; basic local policies affecting foreign nationals;
and contact details for community support agencies and embassies. One of the most
important translated documents was a leaflet in 25 languages which included information
about many important issues, including the groups, other specific help available for foreign
nationals and basic prison rules and policies (see appendix two).
3. Over time, another key factor emerged and became without doubt one of the most
important components of the strategy - that is the creation of a number of foreign national
orderly posts for prisoners. The orderlies systematically visited new arrivals, helped to identify
those in greatest need, distributed important information (including the translated leaflets),
kept lists of inmate interpreters, and visited vulnerable prisoners on a daily basis, referring on
to staff as appropriate. They also took referrals from officers who identified people in need of
support. These posts were a tremendous success, contributing to a calmer, more co-operative
regime, because frustrated foreign national prisoners had an effective means of voicing
concerns and obtaining help on a reasonably immediate basis. As a result, the strategy was
more sustainable, especially as the strong commitment from the prisoners themselves was,
over time, matched by the support of the vast majority of prison staff who could see the
tangible benefits of their work. The most recently published Wandsworth inspection report
(2003d) praised the foreign national orderlies, noting that they often had more knowledge
and information than staff in other establishments. Other research has shown the great value
of giving responsibility to prisoners (e.g. Solomon and Edgar, 2003; Levenson and Farrant,
2002).
4. Another objective was to establish a foreign nationals committee bringing together a range
of prison staff to support a foreign nationals strategy. The committee was chaired by a senior
governor and included representatives of key departments, such as the Independent
Monitoring Board (formerly known as the Board of Visitors), chaplaincy, and inmate
administration, as well as officers and governors. A core foreign nationals team then evolved
from this wider group; it consisted of a seconded probation officer/foreign nationals co-
ordinator, a specialist immigration advice worker, several foreign national prisoner orderlies
and foreign national liaison prison officers/race relations officers, and the governor who
chaired the committee. Perennial staff shortages meant that the officers were always under-
represented, despite considerable personal commitment to the work. Their involvement was
obviously crucial but was being offset to some degree by the other three elements. The
prisons decision to contract a seconded probation officer, specifically to drive forward the
foreign national work, gave the strategy overall co-ordination; the decision to fund a DAS
worker for two days a week provided invaluable support; and the sheer volume of work done
by the orderlies added credibility and visibility. The recognition that the officer involvement
was vital to the ongoing health of the strategy finally led to profiled foreign national officer
time in late 2003. The partnership agencies were supported by the existence of a coherent
strategy, of which their work was a part, and supported by prison-based staff who helped
them to manage any difficulties.
4.2 Underlying principles of the approach
Six principles have helped to achieve the above:
1. A written basis to the strategy; everything of importance, including progress reports,
information documents, minutes, policies, problems and resolutions to those problems were
AGood Practice Approach 17
documented for use in the future. This provided a store of data to help inform new staff,
avoiding the common problem of new staff continuously reinventing the wheel, and
minimising the loss of expertise and knowledge on the departure of key staff.
2. Ongoing evaluation of the strategy from the people who are in the best position to assess
it, namely the prisoners themselves; this was achieved by means of the confidential evaluation
exercise discussed in the previous chapter. Many of the often astute suggestions made by the
foreign national prisoners were integrated into the following years strategy.
3. Handing over as much responsibility to prisoners as possible; this principle forms the basis
of the foreign national orderly role. Prisoners also chaired most groups, and sometimes took
minutes which were then circulated amongst staff. This approach occasionally led to some
resentment and concern amongst a few staff who thought the men would abuse the
responsibility given to them. In fact, the exact opposite happened and the groups became
noticeably more mature and self-regulating after prisoners started to chair them.
4. Keeping prison officers as informed as possible and demonstrating the positive results of
having a coherent strategy; when governors, officers and other staff came to groups, it was
both to answer questions and to hear what the prisoners had to say. They could also see the
results of effective foreign national work on the wings, where the pressure on them was
substantially reduced as they had a quick avenue of referral. From 2002, staff had a
comprehensive manual for foreign national work, compiled by the foreign national team and
containing material such as the prisons foreign national policies, useful addresses, and a brief
explanation of the problems foreign national prisoners typically face.
5. Consistency in the provision of groups; the only way to build credibility with prisoners and
staff was to provide groups when advertised. Although this was sometimes very difficult,
especially at times of staff shortage, it led to the complete acceptance that the group was a
constant in the prisons regime. While individual persistence and commitment were in reality
essential to achieving such consistency, a sustainable strategy must eventually become an
institutional, not an individual, responsibility.
6. A probation-led strategy; the secondment of a probation officer employed specifically to do
the work, helped to ensure consistency. If a prison officer had been given primary
responsibility for the work, there is no doubt that s/he would have been required to do other
work given constant staff shortages and the fact that, for prison officers, security and
operational needs must take priority over all else. In addition, the training of probation
officers may be more suited to the requirements of the role (see chapter 5 for more
discussion of this).
These elements and principles assisted progress from one group a fortnight, no written basis
and no coherent policies, to the level described above. This development can also be traced
clearly through a reading of the HMCI Prisons reports on Wandsworth between 1999 and
2003.
n
g
sed
nd
a
bby
19
5. THE RESEARCH
5.1 Purpose of the Research
It might reasonably be supposed that the approach developed in Wandsworth could work
elsewhere. However, some evidence of its transferability to other contexts is necessary to
establish its wider relevance or lack of it, and this is why the research described below was
conceived. It focused on the views of prisoners and key staff on the viability of the
Wandsworth approach within their prisons. These included two local prisons, a training
prison, a high security prison, a young offender institution and a womens prison, all working
within differing resource environments. Comments on specific parts of the model are
summarised in detail in this chapter, and major themes are analysed and discussed in more
detail in the next chapter.
5.2 Method and the Research Prisons
Group interviews attended by a total of 57 foreign national prisoners (and one British
prisoner in HMP The Mount) were conducted in six prisons. Twelve individual interviews and
three group interviews were conducted with a total of 19 key members of staff in the same
establishments. Most interviews were conducted between April and July 2002. Staff and
prisoners were subject to slightly different interview questions, as outlined below, in order to
make them as relevant as possible.
Liaison staff in each prison were asked to collect together groups of 5-10 prisoners. They
chose some prisoners randomly, others because they had previously attended foreign national
groups and had greater insight into the major issues. All prisoners were assured that they
would only be identified in this report by their nationalities and home prison. The group
format of the prisoner interviews meant that prisoners could, if they wished, remain silent,
although in practice nearly all group members took the opportunity to give their views. The
fact that any opinions given would be ascribed to the whole group was also intended to
reassure prisoners about anonymity. All staff were told they would be identified by their job
titles and home prisons if they agreed to participate.
It is important to note that this method, like all research methods, is susceptible to a degree of
subjectivity. The aim was to establish the perceptions of key individuals with a particular
knowledge or interest in the problems faced by foreign national prisoners, in order to assist
the development of national Prison Service policy and guidelines for work with foreign
nationals. The aim was not to present a detailed critique or implementation plan for particular
prisons - this is rightly the responsibility of the management of those prisons.
5.3 The Interview Format
All respondents were told that there was no need to describe the problems facing foreign
national prisoners because these were well established by previous research. However, as is
outlined in Chapter 3, many interviewees nevertheless spoke at length and with passion about
the problems they faced, and these were included in the research. The group and individual
interviews were all structured as follows:
1. All interviewees were asked What in your view currently works best in meeting the needs
of foreign nationals in this prison?
2. The Wandsworth approach was then outlined in detail and the respondents were invited to
comment on the applicability in principle of each individual element of the approach in their
establishment. If they considered that an element was applicable, they were further asked to
consider what, if any, changes they would make to ensure it was optimally effective in their
establishment. If any part of the approach was thought fundamentally to be unworkable,
respondents were asked to give reasons to explain why, in their view, this was so. Specifically,
they were asked to comment in detail on:
a) The viability and usefulness of foreign national groups;
b) The usefulness of specialist agencies (e.g. immigration advice services and community
support groups);
c) The importance and practicability of providing translated information;
d) The potential for the establishment of a foreign nationals committee with wide
representation;
e) The potential usefulness and viability of employing prisoners as foreign national
orderlies;
f) The usefulness of prisoner feedback in the form of evaluation questionnaires.
Staff were asked to comment on two further areas:
g) The viability of a core foreign nationals team, including foreign national liaison prison
officers;
h) The viability and value of developing a detailed, written basis for a foreign nationals
strategy in their prison, including, for example, strategies and progress reports.
3. All interviewees were then asked What would stand in the way of implementing the
model? in part or as a whole in their establishments.
4. They were asked What other suggestions do you have? and further comments were then
invited on the strengths and weaknesses of the suggested approach.
5.4 The Prisons
The research prisons were chosen mainly because of their proximity - the research was
intended primarily to assist the development of a strategic London-wide approach to foreign
national prisoners - partly because of the different categories and types of prisoner they held,
and partly because of the high numbers of foreign nationals they held. They were:
Brixton - Local prison, foreign national population in mid-2003 was 229, constituting
30% of the population at that time.
Holloway - Womens prison, foreign national population in mid-2003 was 125,
constituting 26% of the population.
Wormwood Scrubs - Local prison, foreign national population in mid-2003 was 484,
Feltham - Young offender institution, foreign national population in mid-2003 was 150,
The Mount - Training prison in Hertfordshire, foreign national population in mid-2003
was 220, constituting 29% of the population.
The Research 21
Belmarsh - High security prison, foreign national population in mid-2003 was 252,
constituting 29% of the population
3
.
5.5 Nature of Research Samples
The profile of the interviewees in each prison is outlined below. The reported nationality of
each prisoner is based on self-definition. Unless otherwise stated, each group was convened
specifically to conduct the research.
Wormwood Scrubs interviewees
A group of six prisoners, consisting of four Jamaicans, one Spanish and one Portuguese
man. No other staff members were present.
A group of sixteen men, all Jamaican. This group was convened as a foreign national
post-sentence induction group, which two probation officers ran on a weekly basis to
provide basic information to newly sentenced foreign national prisoners. The author
accepted an invitation to present a section on the major immigration-related issues (e.g.
deportation, detention, repatriation) which foreign nationals need to be aware of, and
was afterwards allowed to speak to the group about the research.
The Race Relations Liaison Officer (RRLO).
A governor with responsibility for foreign national prisoners.
Two probation officers with some responsibility for providing services to foreign national
prisoners (interviewed individually).
Brixton interviewees
One group consisting of 10 people, three Algerians, two Jamaicans, two Turkish men, one
Ugandan, and two Kosovans. The probation officer convening the meeting was also
present.
One senior prison officer with a particular interest in foreign national prisoners.
The chair of the then Board of Visitors (now Independent Monitoring Board).
A probation officer with special responsibility for foreign national prisoners.
Holloway interviewees
A group of five women, one Spanish, one Dutch, two Jamaican and one Barbadian.
A probation officer was present for some of the time.
A group of one governor and three probation officers with some current or past
responsibility for work with foreign national women.
Belmarsh interviewees
A group of 10 prisoners, one Zimbabwean, four Afghans, one Sri Lankan, one Algerian,
one Kenyan, one Sierra Leonan, and one man from another, unspecified, African country.
This meeting was the fortnightly group already run by a probation officer and a Race
Relations Liaison Officer primarily to inform and advise foreign nationals about different
parts of the prison regime. An ESOL teacher and an officer were also present in the
3 All figures are taken from provisional prison statistics for 2003. The equivalent official figures for mid-2002, when the research was
conducted, are not available. However, according to figures given by staff working in those establishments at the time, they were, in most
cases, slightly lower than in 2003.
room. The author was allowed to speak to the group for the purpose of the research
for the second half of the meeting.
A Race Relations Liaison Officer. We were then joined by a senior officer, who also had
responsibility for race relations.
A probation officer with some specific responsibility for work with foreign national
prisoners.
The Mount interviewees
A probation officer with a particular interest in foreign nationals work.
The Independent Race Relations Volunteer. This is a very unusual position, formalised
by the prison and held by a highly committed man who worked in conjunction with the
probation department.
A group of six prisoners, one French, two Jamaican, one Italian, one Nigerian and one
British man of Indian origin who had been mistaken for a foreign national, but asked to
stay as he had much to contribute on this area. Both the probation officer and the
Independent Race Relations Volunteer were also present.
Feltham interviewees
A probation officer with a particular interest in work with foreign national prisoners.
Five young offenders, one Iraqi, one Jamaican and three Kosovans. The same probation
officer was also present.
A group of three staff, a governor who was also the main Race Relations Liaison
Officer, a principal officer who also had responsibility for race relations, and the same
probation officer.
5.6 Results
The first thing to note is that despite very large foreign national populations, none of the
research prisons had a coherent strategy to meet their needs. None had established clear
and consistent working practices and policies, which would allow work with foreign national
prisoners to develop and to be sustainable in the longer term. Staff were generally frustrated
at their lack of knowledge, the lack of guidance on work with foreign national prisoners, and,
particularly at the lack of time to develop such knowledge and to work constructively with
foreign nationals.
The prisoner groups and foreign national orderly system, both central planks of the
Wandsworth approach, aroused by far the greatest interest amongst most interviewees, and
are summarised first, along with the description of existing provision. Comments on other
issues are summarised following this section.
a) Comments on existing provision, and on the viability and purpose of foreign
national groups and orderlies
Summary: There was, in principle, total support for the establishment of groups along the
lines of the Wandsworth approach from the prisoners; there was almost total support from
the staff. In a number of the prisons, a limited number of groups already ran, but there was a
lack of consistent, coherent provision. The main concerns expressed by both prisoners and
staff related to the viability of convening groups in the face of limited staff resources and the
The Research 23
hostility and/or obstructiveness of some staff. Specific comments and issues from the different
prisons are as follows:
Feltham
Existing provision:
Feltham had no existing group provision for foreign national prisoners. There was, however, a
high level of commitment from the governor and principal officer in charge of race relations,
and from a probation officer particularly interested in foreign national work, for whom a
formal role, with specific time allocation, was planned. Unlike other prisons, Feltham had
established a very effective telephone system which allowed foreign nationals to make calls to
families abroad for a reasonable cost. However, the prisoners did not report being aware of
any special provision being made for them.
Comments on groups and orderlies:
All prisoners were enthusiastic about the prospect of regular foreign national groups.
There was a strong fear amongst prisoners of groups being constantly cancelled and
undermined by staff with bad attitudes.
Amongst staff, there was an equally strong fear of groups being unmanageable because
of the immaturity and volatility of young offenders. Staff were also sceptical about the
prospect of finding appropriate red band orderlies. However, this was before the
prisoner group was held, and it is notable that all the staff interviewed changed their
positions after this group had finished. The attending member of staff was surprised and
pleased with the maturity and enthusiasm of the boys and young men who attended.
She discussed this with other staff and it was agreed that their fears were overstated
and that it was quite possible to find prisoners capable of filling the orderly positions.
She commented that the obvious appreciation of the value of such groups meant that
prisoners would probably be keen not to disrupt the proceedings.
Staff pointed out that a large number of houseblocks, spread over a large area, with very
limited movement between blocks, meant that there would be significant logistical
problems in enabling orderlies to do their jobs. However, staff were convinced of the
importance of the job and keen to find a way around this problem - one suggestion
which came out of the group discussion was doubling up the foreign national job with
the race relations representatives who were soon to be appointed in each houseblock.
The Mount
Existing provision:
The Mount had no specialist provision for foreign national prisoners, but did benefit from the
work of a highly committed volunteer worker, who was much praised by prisoners for his
willingness to contact the Immigration Service on their behalf. An immigration officer did visit
once a month but the prisoners were very ambivalent about this service, mainly because it was
not thought to result in impartial advice being given to people with immigration difficulties.
A probation officer also provided some assistance to foreign national prisoners, but was not
given contractual time to do this work. Staff commented on the under-use of Language Line
(they thought this was because it was seen as being too expensive) and on the minimal
awareness about foreign national issues inside the prison generally. The staff interviewees
were particularly disquieted about the under-use of Language Line in the healthcare unit,
where accurate communication is obviously vital. Induction was criticised by prisoners for
including nothing of relevance to foreign nationals, but mention was made of a Listener leaflet
being available in different languages.
Both prisoners and staff were concerned at what was termed soft segregation - i.e. only
enhanced level prisoners (who are recognised as being the best behaved prisoners and
are therefore eligible for most privileges) being allowed to attend groups in order to
minimise potential security problems. (This would mean that many prisoners most in
need of the group would not be able to attend, and cannot be justified. For example,
immigration problems do not vary according to a prisoners status in relation to the
Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme.)
One prisoner commented that even if the governor sanctions it, every officer has his
own rules the possibility to criticise the prison [in groups] will be feared by officers
and prison management.
With regard to the foreign national orderly role, prisoners spoke at length about their
mistrust of officers allowing it to succeed: officers would appoint only people they want
to appoint.
Belmarsh
Existing provision:
A staff member stated that in Belmarsh a group had already been running, with some lengthy
gaps, on a fortnightly basis for a number of years. There were two main reasons for the
inconsistency of provision: i) the probation officer with responsibility for convening the groups
was given very little time to do this work; and ii) Belmarsh is a high security prison which
means that on the frequent occasions that uniformed staff were unavailable to attend the
group, it was cancelled. A subsequent personal communication from the probation officer
indicated that this problem had been resolved as a result of a particularly committed Race
Relations Liaison Officer taking specific responsibility for supporting the probation officers
work. However, this was clearly not a reliable basis for sustainable provision.
A prisoner stated that foreign national groups work because foreign national prisoners
have a unity of purpose and are more comfortable approaching another foreigner.
The probation officer commented that without the help of foreign national orderlies any
system of work was always liable eventually to collapse.
Prisoners praised the fact that the groups allowed foreign nationals to come together
and share information. They were fearful, however, that bureaucracy might block further
development of work for foreign national prisoners.
Holloway
Existing provision:
Staff described how Holloway had a well-established group, a large proportion of which was
always comprised of Jamaican women. The group had started as a support group but evolved
into a support and information group over time. The staff targeted non-resident women (i.e.
women whose permanent addresses were overseas), who were often more isolated and
The Research 25
needy. However, it had not been provided consistently as a result of prison and probation
staff shortages. As in many other prisons, the foreign national liaison prison officers were
usually unable to meet their commitments and the pressure was therefore on the probation
staff, for whom foreign nationals were a target group. The foreign national group was
intended to run every week but at the time of the group interview (June 2002), it had not
happened for the previous three weeks. Hibiscus, an organisation working with female foreign
nationals, provided a worker who was based in the prison and gave mainly individual advice
and assistance with a variety of problems, including immigration issues. This was a well-
regarded support service.
The prisoners group mentioned that even with a freeflow system (i.e. prisoners are
unlocked and allowed to go to classes unescorted) it was difficult for them to get to
groups because some officers were unwilling to let them go to the designated group
room (something the women felt would have been easier to achieve with the help of
trusted prisoner orderlies).
When it did run, the Holloway group had many visitors, ranging from governors and
voluntary agencies to embassy representatives, solicitors and immigration officers.
However, it was considered by staff to be unwieldy and too often an unfocused free for
all because of the large numbers of women who were allowed to attend (30-50).
Both staff and prisoners mentioned food, health and officers attitudes as being high on
the groups agenda, and staff emphasised the frequent problem of contacting children
and families abroad. (This contrasts with male prisons, where immigration issues and
language problems were more often mentioned, along with staff attitudes.)
In discussing the possible role of the foreign national orderly, one prisoner commented
we can help ourselves, but was worried that staff would not trust her or other
prisoners enough to enable them to carry out the duties of an orderly. Staff
commented on the crucial role that orderlies could fulfil in getting information to other
prisoners.
The staff group and governor identified a problem with retaining orderlies long enough
for them to develop experience, because staff were not, they said, allowed to place
holds on the women for any reason. The overcrowding pressures on the womens
estate were given as the reason for this policy, which had led to the same problem with
Listeners, befrienders and peer group supporters.
Brixton
Existing provision:
Brixton was the only prison, apart from Wandsworth, where more than one type of group
was running on a consistent basis. The prison had made a serious commitment to this work
by employing a probation officer as a part-time foreign nationals co-ordinator, and he had,
according to prisoners and all the other staff interviewed, succeeded in significantly improving
provision in a relatively short space of time. This prison was the closest of all those surveyed
to offering something akin to the Wandsworth approach, but still had no overall strategy for
developing foreign national work. A small general group (8-12 prisoners) was convened by
the probation officer on a weekly basis when prison officers were available to escort
prisoners. This group was described by him as scratching the surface of many issues and it
was clear from the comments of both staff and prisoners that it was in need of greater
resources and support. The small size of the group (dictated by the lack of more spacious
accommodation) meant that most prisoners were able to come only once, a source of
considerable frustration for many of them. The group was frequently attended by other staff
invited by the probation officer, the Imam and the Board of Visitors (now the Independent
Monitoring Board or IMB).
A group for Irish nationals and travellers was run on a monthly basis by a representative from
the Brent Irish Advisory Service, supported by the probation officer. There was a fortnightly
group convened by Vamos Juntos, a voluntary Latin American organisation, again organised by
the probation officer. The probation officer himself ran a monthly group for those subject to
extradition proceedings (who were not necessarily foreign nationals), an issue peculiar to
Brixton which receives all such prisoners. Finally, he convened an occasional (every two
months) group for detainees and asylum-seekers. The lack of funding for a specialist
immigration advice agency was a considerable problem, limiting the service provision to this
critical group
4
.
All but one of the staff interviewees commented on the widespread resistance from
many prison officers to the establishment of any kind of specialist group provision for
foreign national prisoners. There were also complaints from prisoners who had missed
groups that they were expecting to attend, because they were not unlocked on time.
Many of these men had stayed in their cells instead of going to the gym, library, etc. and
had therefore missed out on two counts.
On the positive side, two prisoners were described by the probation officer and the
Chair of the Board of Visitors as being orderlies in all but name and the glue holding
everything together as they assisted the probation officer to bring these groups
together. However, the lack of an agreed job description or paid employment meant that
this was inevitably a loose and vulnerable arrangement.
A senior prison officer highlighted the importance of foreign national orderlies being
properly supported by staff. In discussing the potential problem of tension between
some nationalities (in groups and on the landings) because of regional tensions (e.g.
between Iraqis and Kurds), he also commented: people in difficult circumstances tend
to help each other regardless of internecine conflict in home countries. Regarding the
value of employing prisoners to do the work, and the security implications of giving
them a lot of responsibility, he commented that there is No finer way to control
prisoners than [the use of] other prisoners and people look after people, not systems.
The need for a culture change was highlighted during the interview with the probation
officer and BoV chair. They agreed that a major problem likely to hinder the
effectiveness of the orderlies was simply getting them unlocked, and suggested that a
system of auditing would need to be in place to ensure that they were out and doing
their jobs at the appropriate times.
The probation officer and BoV member highlighted the importance of being clear about
the principles and need for foreign national groups - this was because some British
prisoners had complained that the groups were racist for excluding them.
4 However, since the appointment of a diversity team in mid-2003, Brixton has undertaken to provide full funding for a specialist advice service
to prisoners with immigration problems.
The Research 27
Wormwood Scrubs
Existing provision:
Wormwood Scrubs had a very high foreign national population, largely comprised of
Jamaicans and Latin Americans, and therefore had a particular need for foreign national
provision. In the past, this prison had been recognised as a centre of good practice, but when
the probation officer responsible for the work moved on to another post, the provision she
had built up gradually unravelled. At the time of this research, the consistent provision was a
monthly Spanish and Portuguese speakers social group run by an outside agency, and a post-
sentence group run by a seconded probation officer and two probation officers from what
was then (April 2002) the London Probation Areas Foreign National Unit. This latter group,
much appreciated by the attending prisoners, ran every 1-2 weeks and provided advice to
newly sentenced prisoners on a range of issues, including immigration, transfer, sentence
planning, early release and visits. There was induction information in a range of languages.
Other groups had been planned but had not taken place because of a lack of staff or a lack of
co-ordination. A DAS worker provided valued individual advice but felt hindered by the lack
of a coherent support strategy to assist her work. Overall, provision was considered by all
staff and prisoners to be wholly inadequate to the needs of the prison. The Race Relations
Liaison Officer was not aware of what groups were running and thought that general staff
awareness of foreign national needs was low. There was a fledgling foreign nationals
committee.
One of the interesting issues raised by a number of staff and prisoners was the question
of who should have responsibility for convening groups. One probation officer listed a
range of requirements for running effective groups and considered these to be
problematic for non-probation staff to meet. These were: skills in groupwork dynamics,
multi-agency working experience, awareness of immigration issues, diversity/anti-
discriminatory practice training, and communication skills training. On the other hand, a
senior prison officer felt that prison officers who had formerly worked in an on-site drug
and alcohol rehabilitation unit would be ideally suited to running foreign national groups
- he distinguished between tutoring on structured, pre-planned programmes, and the
very different demands of running more free-flowing support and information groups
with sometimes highly distressed and anxious prisoners. Experience of this latter kind of
group would, in his view, have particular relevance to running foreign national groups.
As in many other prisons, the problems thrown up by the limited availability of prison
officers to support groups was raised by almost all of the prisoners and staff. All of the
prisoners in the smaller group interview of six thought that most staff would be
unsympathetic to regular groups, but half were adamant that, despite this, staff would not
seek to stop the groups happening because they would respect their importance.
The Race Relations Liaison Officer emphasised the importance of building a training
programme for orderlies. He also thought the likelihood of orderlies being allowed to
move around the prison to do their jobs was low, because of the discomfort such a role
would create amongst some staff.
The issue of goodwill to make anything work was stressed by one of the probation
officers.
b) Comments relating to the viability and purpose of all other aspects of the
approach.
Summary: Apart from expressions of support, little comment was made in any prison on the
subject of specialist agencies, translated information and the concept of the core team. The
other comments therefore relate to various miscellaneous aspects of foreign national work.
However, the issue of who should do the work of a foreign national co-ordinator and what
would assist or hinder that work, was a major theme.
The Mount
The importance of governor support and awareness was highlighted by staff, as was the
value of a co-ordinator being appointed to encourage this. A vicious circle was
discussed, in which a co-ordinator would not be appointed without such support, but
without a co-ordinator, the level of awareness of the problems faced by foreign nationals
would not be sufficient to encourage such an appointment. One staff member gave the
example of a governor expressing surprise at the fact that there were foreign nationals
in the prison who might be unable to speak English and understand instructions.
The prisoner group discussion about the role of the foreign national co-ordinator was
also particularly interesting, and revealed a great deal of distrust of prison officers
fulfilling this role. It was argued that the level of trust in an officer appointed to the role
of foreign national co-ordinator would be low because of the generally poor level of
communication and trust between uniformed staff and prisoners: An officer is an officer.
It doesnt matter how good that officer is many officers are ignorant of guidance or
rules themselves. The approach to probation staff was different (although of course the
fact that the interviewer was a probation officer may well have had an influence here);
they were seen as independent and fair by prisoners.
The role of foreign national co-ordinator was seen as vital by staff who cited several
instances of tripping upon important information or resources for foreign national
prisoners by accident.
The Independent Race Relations Volunteer commented on the desperate need for
someone to co-ordinate foreign nationals work and felt that with such co-ordination
there was no reason for groups not to take place.
An important issue raised by the Race Relations Volunteer in The Mount was that of
foreign national prisoners who are transferred - there should, he argued be some way
to transfer information about language difficulties from prison to prison. Clearly, if this
were done, staff in the receiving prison would be able to identify prisoners in need of
support from the foreign national team relatively quickly.
In terms of translated information, staff mentioned the value of inserting a few lines into
the foreign national prisoners resource pack (a new edition of which is being prepared
by the Prison Service) to explain the possibility that a foreign national strategy may exist
in individual prisons.
Wormwood Scrubs
A probation officer talked of a snowball effect overcoming resistance amongst the staff
group if the model were to be instituted - in his view, once something was up and
running, its positive effects could be demonstrated, persuading some sceptical staff of its
value and encouraging others to take the line of least resistance and go along with it
whatever their feelings on the matter.
The Research 29
The governor stated that although foreign national liaison officers were identified, they
were not active because their time could not be spared. She was critical of the lack of
guidance and targets from headquarters and what she regarded as a lack of
commitment. She strongly advocated performance targets to give prisons the incentive
to prioritise foreign national work. She stated that A co-ordinated strategy at a higher
level is crucial, a roving advisor should be appointed to assist prisons to develop their
own strategies, and support services such as interpreters and translations, should be
made available on a London-wide basis, managed by the London area office.
Brixton
The profile which the existence of a capable co-ordinator with specific responsibility for
this group of prisoners had brought to foreign national work was praised by prisoners
and staff alike.
The probation officer mentioned how useful it would be for all foreign national co-
ordinators to meet on a monthly basis to give each other support and to discuss
problems, solutions and other issues. Although a group for all those involved in such
work has occasionally been convened in London, he felt there was also much value in
having a smaller, more focused meeting where a process of mutual supervision could
take place.
The probation officer felt that a separate foreign nationals committee was unnecessary
and that the work could effectively be subsumed in the race relations committee. He
also suggested that a specific induction programme could be developed for foreign
nationals and that performance standards would be an important means of helping to
ensure that foreign nationals were put through such an induction and to increase the
priority for foreign nationals work generally. Finally, he also mentioned that despite many
excellent prison officers, in his view, as a group they generally had a lack of appropriate
training for foreign national work.
Prisoners expressed their concern that foreign national co-ordinators could become
sidelined or overwhelmed with complaints and individual problems and therefore
stressed the need to choose the recipients of such posts carefully.
The senior officer stressed the importance of having a co-ordinator to manage and
respond to any form of evaluation of provision in the prison. He also stated that a
Prison Service Order with clear guidelines about the role of the co-ordinator and about
other foreign national issues, was crucial.
The same senior officer offered some thoughts on why prison officers might not be the
most suitable staff members to manage foreign national groups and on why orderlies
would be a vital resource, arguing that prison officer training had not yet caught up with
ideas on the best way to control prisons. There were, he thought, two broad categories
of officer: one thought that developing relationships and getting on with people was
the way to work effectively, and the other was mistrustful and unwilling to give up power
and control, especially to prisoners. This latter group would, in his view throw up the
main obstacles to a successful strategic approach to foreign national work.
The BoV member and probation officer also talked of the importance of the foreign
nationals committee doing a PR job for any foreign nationals strategy, and the
importance of a national push on foreign nationals work.
Holloway
The women talked of the incredibly high level of need, and the need to have a
champion for foreign national prisoners.
The staff group considered that a major problem was that no one person is taking
responsibility for the work, and that such a person must be trusted and experienced.
Belmarsh
The probation officer and race relations officer emphasised the importance of ring-
fenced time for a foreign nationals co-ordinator, and the fact that governor support was
critical to achieve this. However, they did not feel that foreign nationals work would be
given much priority because of general staffing shortages and other prison priorities.
Feltham
All staff interviewees at Feltham were enthusiastic about the prospect of a probation
officer being appointed to do foreign nationals work. However, they were concerned
that the role would not be given sufficient priority given the lack of guidance or
performance requirements. Most of the work so far done by the probation officer had
been as a result of her personal interest and commitment, rather than an organisational
commitment.
Staff in other prisons should find that the feedback reported above provides useful
indicators of the kind of problems they might face in their own prisons. The next chapter
picks out and explores in more detail some major themes, as well as further issues that
might need to be addressed.
31
The study has demonstrated support throughout the research prisons for the approach
described and, in particular, an enthusiasm for the concept of foreign national groups, orderlies
and co-ordinators. Staff and prisoners in the research prisons believed that, with minimal
adaptations, the basic approach was transferable to their establishments.
A more complex picture has emerged in relation to perceptions of the viability of
implementing a foreign nationals strategy given particular local and national circumstances:
enthusiasm for the approach was tempered by many concerns. In this chapter, a number of
important issues arising directly from, or linked to, the research are analysed, with particular
attention given to potential weaknesses in the model. A range of proposals for improving
national and area Prison Service policy and practice are made, before a refined model,
recommended for use in individual establishments, is presented in chapter 7. Much of the
discussion below refers back to the research results outlined in chapter 5.
6.1 Questions and Themes
How important is probation involvement and are non-probation staff suited to the
foreign national co-ordinators job?
All of the research prisons had given or were planning to give specific responsibility for
implementing foreign national work to probation staff. This is partly, as stated in chapter 5,
because probation staff seconded to do a specific job with foreign nationals cannot be given
other duties at a time of prison officer shortage (although probation departments are
themselves not immune to staff shortages, as evidenced in Holloway). The training of
probation officers may also seem more suited to the requirements of the job, as was argued
by the probation officers in Wormwood Scrubs. It is useful to look at some of the actual
requirements of the job before continuing this discussion - they are:
Co-ordination, management and communication skills;
Groupwork and assessment skills;
Awareness of the issues and good background knowledge;
Writing and analytical skills;
Presentation skills which can help in training of other staff and raising the profile of work;
Knowledge of community resources;
A strong commitment to anti-discriminatory practice.
Probation officers undergo an intensive two year degree level professional training covering
these skills in some depth, while prison officer training is completed in eight weeks and
focuses more on security related issues. There is still no reason why prison officers should not
have all of the attributes listed above. But there is good reason to argue that probation staff
are more likely to have them, and more likely to be enabled to use them. For example, the
commitment to anti-discriminatory values and to treating offenders/prisoners with respect is
6. KEY ISSUES AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
PRISON SERVICE AT A NATIONAL
AND AREA LEVEL
something that is prominent in probation history and training and is something with which
probation staff as a group are generally associated. This contrasts with the reputation of
prison officers, as a group, as being generally unsympathetic to such values and in need of
initiatives such as the drive towards the decency agenda launched by the previous Director
General, Martin Narey and continued by his successor, Phil Wheatley.
These are general stereotypes, but they do seem to help give probation staff more credibility
with offenders (as evidenced, for example, in the feedback from the prisoner groups in The
Mount and Brixton). The senior officer in Brixton also summed up the potential problem of a
negative prison officer culture overly-focused on the maintenance of power and control and
mistrustful of initiatives intended to enhance the decent treatment of prisoners.
Probation officers availability, training and reputation is therefore likely to make them
appropriate co-ordinators. However, it would be nave to suggest that this would apply in
every prison and offensive to suggest that prison officers cannot do the job. Consequently,
the most appropriate conclusion must be that whoever meets the criteria above is likely to do a
good job, regardless of professional background. Initial prisoner mistrust of uniformed staff
should be surmountable in most, if not all, establishments.
Perhaps the most important points are i) that staff should be given protected time to do the
work, ii) that they should have the motivation and aptitude to do the job, and iii) that there
should be a team involving both prison officers and probation staff, who can support and
advise each other. RRLOs are particularly important, and it is very noticeable that in most
prisons their personal support and involvement had been very helpful in assisting whatever
progress had been made (e.g. in Belmarsh, many of the groups would not have taken place
without that support).
Local or central support?
The issue of governor support was considered to be crucial by a number of staff respondents,
although perhaps the most telling contribution on this subject was from a governor
responsible for foreign national prisoner policy in Wormwood Scrubs. She pointed out the
desirability of central direction and guidance in order to give governors something tangible to
support, and to reassure them that resources were not being misdirected. The probation
officer in the same prison who talked of the vital importance of governor and prison officer
goodwill was touching on a similar theme - i.e. the vulnerability of any work with foreign
nationals without governor support buttressed by a commitment to foreign national work
from Headquarters. This problem is compounded by the current high turnover of governors
and consequent lack of consistent and stable leadership.
Two specific and linked points mentioned on several occasions were: i) the lack of any
identified source of advice on foreign national work, and ii) the lack of a communication
network for staff undertaking such work.
In relation to the second point, it would be very useful to establish a means of information and
resource exchange between staff in various prisons (a probation officer in Belmarsh mentioned
the particular value of being able to exchange information in translation, and a probation officer
in Brixton suggested a monthly co-ordinators support group), co-ordinated either by
headquarters or on an area basis. The London probation area has convened such a meeting for
prison and probation staff on a fairly frequent basis, and it has proven to be a popular initiative.
The first point should be ameliorated to some extent by the issuing of national guidelines.
However, there seems to be an important role for specialist advisors who can give practical
Key Issues and Recommendations to the Prison Service at a National and Area Level 33
advice. The governor in Wormwood Scrubs stressed the value of such input, particularly
during the early stages of strategy development. Such advisors might work on a voluntary
basis or on temporary secondment.
The need for auditable standards
Performance indicators and monitoring seem critical to the success of foreign nationals
strategies across the prison estate. Time and again, across every prison, the message was the
same - in a target-driven system, with very limited resources, those resources will be devoted
to the areas of monitored work which will allow the prison to claim some credit during
regular audits. While the obvious necessity and importance of foreign national work meant
that governors tended to be sympathetic to arguments for greater provision, they felt unable
to make a commitment to it for this reason. As one uniformed member of staff commented
(Wormwood Scrubs RRLO), no one gets into trouble if it doesnt happen.
There is little doubt, given the evidence of inconsistent and unco-ordinated work discussed in
this report, that minimum standards and audit/self-audit to measure adherence to them, are a
crucial element of any successful and sustainable foreign nationals strategy. Support for this
position comes from the Prison Services own Guidance for Self-audit in Prison Service
Establishments (published on Quantum, the Prison Service intranet, accessed in July 2003,
undated). This document explains the process of audit and discusses measures of compliance
with Prison Service standards. It states that:
The importance of self-audit in supporting the effective delivery of standards
cannot be over-estimated a high quality self-audit system is vital to the
effective performance of each establishment. (Section 3)
Staff in Brixton also highlighted the value of simple self-audits to ensure that foreign national
orderlies were unlocked to do their jobs.
How relevant is the approach to women prisoners?
The research in Holloway suggested that the approach could apply there and there is nothing
about foreign national prisoners in the general literature to suggest that a radically different
approach would be required for the womens estate. Nevertheless, some important
differences would need to be reflected in the priorities developed within individual strategies.
For example, three-quarters of women foreign nationals are imprisoned for drug trafficking
offences and many have primary childcare responsibilities. These factors point to the need for
greater attention to drugs education and good quality links with home countries, using
support organisations such as Hibiscus. However, as the research looked only at one womens
prison, it would not be appropriate to draw firm conclusions without more research in other
womens establishments.
What if there are few foreign nationals prisoners in an establishment?
The first point to be made is that prison statistics show that there are foreign nationals in
virtually every single Prison Service establishment. Foreign nationals constitute about 12
per cent of all prisoners (see appendix one) and are a growing population. Consequently,
there is a need for every prison establishment to be aware of the particular needs that
they present.
Clearly, it is not cost-effective or necessary for every prison to have foreign national provision
as encompassing as that developed in Wandsworth. But there is no reason why the basic
elements (e.g. group provision, orderlies, etc.) should not be implemented with due regard to
proportionality (e.g. some prisons will need fewer groups and orderlies). Variations in the
model will also need to be agreed in many prisons according to their individual structures and
functions, even if they have high numbers of foreign nationals. For example, Feltham will have
to have different orderlies in each of its dozen or so houseblocks, because no movement is
allowed between them.
Every prison should have a foreign national strategy that seeks to meet the needs of foreign
national prisoners, no matter how many or how few there are. This is clearly becoming an
expectation. For example, although there are very few foreign nationals in HMP Cardiff, the
Inspectorate report (2003e) makes a point of criticising the lack of distinction between the
need to maintain good race relations and the need to develop services specifically for foreign
national prisoners (p.76). It goes on to recommend a comprehensive policy covering the
needs of prisoners who are foreign nationals (p.145). Once it is accepted that each prison
should have a foreign national strategy, the issue of providing appropriate support for those
establishments that have little experience of working with foreign national prisoners and little
contact with specialist organisations (which tend to be grouped around London) should be
addressed. For example, one way of ensuring that each prison has access to immigration
advice might be to negotiate a central contract with one of the respected immigration advice
agencies to provide telephone advice and information.
A separate foreign nationals committee or a single race relations committee?
This issue was originally raised by staff in Brixton, who considered a foreign nationals slot in
the race relations committee to be sufficient. But the question is closely linked to the one
above, as prisons with few foreign nationals may consider a separate committee to be an
excessive and unnecessary commitment. It may seem a sensible use of resources to
encompass discussion of foreign national issues within a single meeting, but there is a
considerable danger with this arrangement that foreign national issues will become lost in
broader discussions about race relations, something that has been a problem in a number of
establishments (as evidenced in many HMI Prisons reports). This is certainly not conducive to
the development of a coherent strategic approach to foreign national work. In fact, the
development of a foreign nationals committee was specifically highlighted by the most recently
published HMI Prisons report on Wandsworth (2003d) as an example of good practice to be
followed elsewhere. This is appropriate, given that other major elements of the approach,
such as groups and constant evaluation, can only be generated once such a team is in place.
Consequently, it seems more appropriate to ensure that in every prison with foreign nationals,
there is at least a foreign nationals sub-committee of the full race relations committee which is
responsible for driving forward and monitoring progress. Certainly, in prisons with large
numbers of foreign nationals, such as the London establishments, foreign national work cannot
be properly addressed without a separate meeting. Any recommended minimum number of
foreign national prisoners to trigger a full, separate committee will inevitably be somewhat
arbitrary, but, based on experience, any prison with more than 10 per cent or 40 foreign
national prisoners, whichever is the greater, should probably form a separate committee.
How can the use of Language Line be encouraged?
Every Prison Service establishment has had access to the telephone interpreting service
Language Line since 1994. Language Line staff have also provided workshops for RRLOs
and sent out guidance and publicity material to all prisons. But, despite the huge potential
benefits of this service, there is little doubt that it remains greatly under-used - this
conclusion has been consistently highlighted by Inspectorate reports across a wide range of
prisons (e.g. see HMIP, 2003, 2002, 2001); it is a conclusion supported by the Wandsworth
experience and the feedback from the research prisons. There appear to be two main
reasons for this:
a) Expense: governors pay for Language Line from their individual budgets, and staff access
in many prisons is granted only with permission from governors or wing managers. This clearly
deters staff from making use of the service. The recent Inspectorate report on The Mount
notes that:
We were told that Language Line was seen as too expensive and there was no
budget for this service. (HMIP, 2003, para.2.32)
Similarly, the Wormwood Scrubs Inspectorate report states that:
Encouragement had recently been given to the use of Language Line by the
Foreign National Governor, but it was still generally believed to be too
expensive and its use had been very limited. (HMIP, 2001b, para.1.62)
However, it is worth noting that the Wandsworth experience found that it actually cut costs,
probably because the relative speed and efficiency of Language Line interpreters minimised
the need for expensive face-to-face interpretation. The value, in terms of improved
communication with sometimes very confused foreign national prisoners (and therefore
adherence to the principles of equal opportunities), is harder to measure, but undoubtedly
highly significant. The Inspectorate report on The Mount again shows why use of Language
Line can be vital:
There was a need to develop the use of this service for interpretation in a
range of formal settings such as in adjudications or in the preparation of
parole reports. Such services could be crucial to understanding the anxieties of
prisoners who are at risk of self-harm. (para.2.32)
b) Staff misconceptions about the difficulty of using the service: experience over many years in
Wandsworth strongly suggests that a large number of staff think that special phones are
needed to access the service (in fact, it only requires a normal phone and the prisons
specified access code), that Language Line interviews can only be conducted by specially
trained personnel (it is simple enough for any member of staff to use it), and that it takes an
inordinately long time to be connected to an interpreter (an interpreter is almost always
available within a few seconds).
Simple guidelines on using Language Line should therefore be distributed in every prison (see
appendix three for an example). It would also be very helpful to have a more thorough
research-based knowledge of the use and usefulness of Language Line in prisons.
Consequently, Elliss (1998, p.18) recommendation that a study be made into the use of
Language Line in different establishments should be supported.
How should foreign national status be defined?
A common question in establishments was who do we define as foreign nationals? It seems
to have arisen for two main reasons: first, in many prisons the process for identifying foreign
nationals is not reliable or consistent - this means that black British people have often been
wrongly identified as foreign nationals, creating much confusion. Second, the need to prioritise
according to need means that sometimes only foreign nationals resident abroad have been
considered for the specific services which have been made available, and in some cases this
has been extended to an exclusion of foreign nationals with EU residency, even though many
of them may be subject to deportation proceedings.
While there is some overlap between the issues faced by minority ethnic British prisoners and
foreign nationals, these groups have distinct needs. For example, foreign nationals can have
immigration problems, are more likely to have communication difficulties and to need information
about how the criminal justice system in this country works. Such prisoners may well be white
and European - there should not be an assumption that a white foreign national will have less
need for information and support than a black foreign national prisoner. On the other hand, black
British prisoners may face more racism and have different cultural needs to both foreign nationals
and white British prisoners. There needs to be a separate response to this issue.
It is recommended that foreign nationals are defined literally as those prisoners who do not
have British passports. Prioritisation by need can then occur within this clear and obvious
definition. It is up to individual prisons to decide whether they have the capacity to include
people with dual nationality.
How can foreign nationals be identified and assessed?
Nationality and place of birth are among the details recorded by the reception staff who
interview all newly arrived prisoners. Drawing on this data, prison staff should be able to
create a LIDS (Local Inmate Data System) enquiry providing a reasonably comprehensive list of
foreign national prisoners. Similarly, whenever an immigration detention order is made, this
information should always be on the computer database and a list of deportees and detainees
can therefore be generated. Although the reliability of recorded nationality is variable, such lists
are at least a good starting point. In Wandsworth, the foreign national orderlies are often told
by other prisoners of new foreign national arrivals whose nationality may not have been
correctly recorded. They are also required to visit new arrivals and complete an assessment
form (see appendix four).There is no reason why such forms could not be copied and put into
a prisoners file when completed, thus helping to ensure some continuity of care and action.
Training implications
Staff in most prisons expressed concern at their lack of knowledge about how to address the
major problems facing foreign national prisoners. It is also something that has become clear
as a result of numerous requests to Wandsworth staff, from prisons across the country, for
advice on work with foreign national prisoners.
Clearly, there is scope for a range of training to be provided, covering, for example, the main
concerns of foreign national prisoners, working with the Immigration Service, groupwork skills,
strategy development, and responding to particular needs. However, it seems more
appropriate to first agree guidelines and standards on foreign national work, and to then
develop a training strategy centred on the demands that would be made on prison-based staff
as a consequence. Once guidelines and standards on foreign national work are developed, it
would seem appropriate for training guidelines to be issued from Prison Service
Headquarters and Training Services.
Two points can be made at this stage: first, joint training delivered by prison-based staff and
outside specialists together, seems important. The prison-based staff (preferably including
uniformed staff) can provide knowledge of the establishments culture as well as local
understanding, experience and credibility. Meanwhile, outside specialist trainers can provide
wider knowledge and experience (e.g. of developments on a national scale, the workings of
the Immigration Service, the theoretical underpinning of the model and wider debates about
immigration issues in this country). More discussion of this approach, and other useful advice
is contained in the Home Office Review of Training in Racism awareness and Valuing Cultural
Diversity (Home Office, 2002).
Second, it is also important to recognise the limitations of any training - for example, training
in immigration issues will never be sufficient to take the place of accredited specialist
immigration advice workers, who are able to keep up with changes in immigration policy,
procedure and law.
Does every prison need a specialist immigration advisor?
Immigration problems or potential immigration problems are high on the agenda of foreign
national prisoners. It is therefore vital to have access to accurate and impartial immigration
advice. This does not necessarily mean that advisors should regularly visit every prison. But it
does mean that prisons should attempt to make links with reputable immigration advice
agencies, which could then advise prisoners by telephone or letter.
It is important to note that while visiting immigration officers can be a great help, they are not
always an appropriate resource. For example, in The Mount, the visiting immigration officer
could be helpful to prisoners wanting to comply with and expedite deportation proceedings,
but was perceived as a hostile figure by those who were contesting deportation.
A particularly important point is the need to support partnership workers from any agency.
Their work should form a part of the strategy, and prison-based staff (in most cases the
foreign national co-ordinator is likely to be the main link) can help them to resolve any
difficulties they may face inside the establishment.
Offending behaviour courses for drug importers?
Offending behaviour courses for drug importers was not a prominent concern mentioned
during the research, but this is an issue that is periodically raised given the disproportionate
number of foreign national prisoners who are drug couriers. As they may well be
disadvantaged in the parole process unless they can demonstrate that they have addressed
their offending behaviour, it seems reasonable to suggest that research on the availability,
accessibility and potential effectiveness of courses for foreign national drug importers should
be considered. Such a review may conclude that existing courses, particularly Enhanced
Thinking Skills programmes, will be sufficient, but an investigation is still necessary. Accessibility
of courses for foreign nationals with poor English language skills is an important issue, pointing
to the need for sufficient ESOL provision.
Sustainability: individual personalities and the wider diversity strategy
A sustainable strategy must be an institutional, not an individual, responsibility, even as it taps
into the commitment and skill of individual members of staff. The issue of competent and
enthusiastic individuals designing and carrying out effective work in individual prisons and then
the whole project gradually or suddenly collapsing on their departure is a significant problem
for the Prison Service, and not just in the field of foreign national work. This problem has been
a central consideration during the development of the Wandsworth strategy and during the
project which is the subject of this report.
There are two points to be made: first, having the ability, values and commitment to develop work
with foreign nationals, is critical to success at all times. However, one of the aims of this report is to
help put in place the guidelines and requirements that will ensure that RRLOs or new foreign national
co-ordinators should not in future need to have the persistence and stamina that developing entirely
new projects requires. Building on existing guidance, policy and practice is easier than fighting for
recognition, and there is no reason why prisons employing competent individuals with appropriate
institutional backing (from the national service, as well as from area and local prison managers)
should not succeed in sustaining a coherent, long-term, foreign national strategy.
It is important that the model does not exist in isolation and is instead embedded in a wider
diversity strategy (see Home Office, 2002). Insufficient attention to cultures of racism,
stereotyping and discrimination in individual prisons will result in foreign national work, like any
other initiative which requires respect for diversity, being eroded. Just as each element in the
foreign national model can support the others, a foreign nationals strategy must be buttressed
by, and provide support to, other initiatives that support diversity, cultural change and changes
in policy and practice. Some or all of these may be very difficult for some staff to accept, and
they may well attempt (overtly, covertly, consciously or sub-consciously) to undermine the
work. They are far more likely to succeed if the strategy is not integrated into a coherent
institutional approach that is intolerant of discrimination and is instead supportive of the
principles of respect and decency. This point was touched upon by staff in Brixton, who
considered that culture change was a prerequisite of effective change; certainly, if more
consideration had been given to this issue at the start of the Wandsworth strategy, it would
probably have made progress far easier.
Is a separate Prison Service Order necessary?
There is very little central guidance on policy and practice with foreign national prisoners. The
main exception is the recently updated PSO 4630 on immigration detainees, which is
accompanied by a few other disparate statements spread amongst a variety of Prison Service
Orders. Consequently, prison staff who want guidance on anything other than immigration-
related issues are working within a virtual policy vacuum. This does little to encourage the
development of knowledge and good practice.
There are strong arguments for a new, distinct Order. First, there are obvious moral and
organisational reasons to treat progress on foreign national issues with some urgency. Such
reasons include the steep rise in foreign national prisoners (up from eight per cent of the
population in 2000 to 12 per cent in 2004); the consequent stress caused to them and to staff
attempting to provide support for them; and the increasingly close scrutiny of the Prison
Inspectorate. Marking the importance of the issue with a distinct PSO on foreign nationals
would therefore seem to be sensible both in strategic and symbolic terms.
A more prosaic reason for a separate PSO is contained in the above discussion under the
heading How should foreign nationals status be defined? That section highlights the fact that
the distinct experiences and needs of foreign nationals are sometimes ignored because they
are wrongly subsumed by the often very different needs of minority ethnic British people.
6.2 Summary of Area and National Recommendations
1. Guidelines on local policy and practice with foreign national prisoners should be issued
by the Prison Service.
2. Auditable standards based on those guidelines should be developed to motivate action
in individual prisons, and to encourage and enable managers to give foreign national
work a higher degree of priority in their business plans (both a national and area
responsibility).
3. Consideration should be given to convening staff liaison forums on an area basis, to allow
front-line staff to share information and resources, and to discuss issues relating to their
work with foreign national prisoners.
4. Areas should give consideration to appointing a foreign national policy/practice advisor,
especially during the strategy development phase; such an advisor might be an
experienced co-ordinator from one of the prisons in the local area.
5. Research on the use of Language Line should be instituted by the centre.
6. Statistics relating to the incidence of self-harm amongst foreign national prisoners should
be gathered systematically in order to establish if a particular response is required to this
issue. If the risk of self-harm is found to be higher, research should be commissioned to
examine the particular risk factors for foreign national prisoners.
7. Research on the access of foreign national prisoners to offending behaviour
programmes, and the viability of setting up programmes for drug importers, should be
instituted by the centre.
8. Advice on training, developed around the centrally-issued guidelines for foreign national
policy and practice, should be issued from the centre.
9. Much of the above should be included in a distinct Prison Service Order which makes it
clear that the work of each establishment relates to a coherent overall Prison Service
foreign national strategy. Without such guidance from headquarters, it seems unlikely
that sustainable and effective practice can replace the myriad of unco-ordinated short-
term and short-lived initiatives that currently predominate in relation to work with
foreign national prisoners.
The next chapter will outline suggested guidelines for individual prisons wishing to institute
effective work with foreign national prisoners. It is recommended that they form part of the
Prison Services guidance to individual establishments on work with foreign national prisoners.
41
The proposed model discussed below has been developed around the basic principle that
equality of treatment for foreign nationals can only be achieved by addressing their specific
needs and the well-documented disadvantages they face in the prison system. The strategy
should also be sustainable, evaluated, dynamic (changing according to need), and give
responsibility to prisoners wherever possible and appropriate. The model described here
consists of nine main elements and has been refined with reference to the research and the
issues discussed in chapter 6. It will be most effective if it is implemented in the context of
the national and area recommendations set out in that chapter.
7.1 The Refined Model
Foreign Nationals Strategy - The most fundamental objective must be for each prison to
produce a distinct and coherent strategy to meet the needs of foreign national prisoners. This
must be produced even if there are few foreign nationals in the prison. The strategy should
be well-designed according to established principles (e.g. it should be based on an assessment
of need and set out specific time-limited objectives). Crucially, it must be embedded within
the prisons wider diversity strategy and progress against agreed objectives should be
rigorously recorded and evaluated.
Foreign Nationals Committee - Each prison with sufficient numbers of foreign national
prisoners (10 per cent or 40 per cent, whichever is larger) to warrant a separate foreign
nationals committee, should form such a group with a wide-ranging membership, which is
chaired by a senior governor, in order to plan and help to implement that strategy. If there are
insufficient foreign nationals to justify a full separate committee, a sub-committee of the race
relations committee should be formed. If the number of foreign national prisoners is too
small to justify a part or full-time foreign nationals co-ordinator, the RRLO should carry an
explicit and specific responsibility for addressing the needs of foreign national prisoners by
developing and implementing a foreign nationals strategy.
The foreign nationals committee should oversee and support the strategy. It is recommended
that it should include the following people:
The governor with responsibility for foreign national prisoners.
The race relations liaison officer (RRLO).
Foreign national prisoner orderlies (FNOs).
The foreign nationals co-ordinator (FNC); and, if s/he is not a probation or probation
service officer, a member of the seconded probation team.
Foreign national liaison prison officers (FNLOs) or, if there are no specifically detailed
officers, officers with a particular interest in this work.
A representative from the Inmate Administration department, ideally the person who
deals with immigration paperwork.
Representatives from the following agencies: chaplaincy, the Independent Monitoring
Board, psychology, education (preferably the ESOL tutor), the library and legal services.
Different prisons may decide that other staff should attend depending on their involvement
and availability. Each major decision regarding foreign nationals policy and practice should be
discussed and agreed by the committee and each member should be prepared to support
7. RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR
INDIVIDUAL ESTABLISHMENTS
the strategy in his or her own area of influence within or outside the prison. The chair of the
Foreign Nationals Committee should always be a governor, preferably a senior one, and their
main role is to ensure that the strategy is visible at a senior management level and to support
the objectives of the committee.
Foreign National Groups - These should be instituted by almost all prisons. Even if there
are no more than a handful of foreign national prisoners, they should be given the
opportunity to come together, and gain support and advice. The groups should have a
primary focus on giving information about issues which specifically affect foreign national
prisoners. These are likely to include immigration problems, maintaining contact with families,
and difficulties experienced as a result of language problems, which limit the prisoners ability
to communicate orally or in writing. The groups should also provide a forum for mutual
support and allow for direct communication between prisoners and staff, who should be
invited to attend whenever possible. Such groups are likely to reduce frustration, help
develop pro-social behaviour in the prison and a co-operative atmosphere.
The FNC/RRLO and FNLOs should take the primary responsibility for convening groups, but
group members should be encouraged to chair whenever possible. Prisons with a number of
deportees should give serious consideration to obtaining the assistance of a specialist and
accredited immigration advice service. Communication with such agencies should be
established, and their contact details should be easily available to staff and prisoners.
Foreign National Orderlies - All prisons should identify prisoners who can represent and
assist other foreign nationals. It is recommended that full or half-time foreign national
orderlies are employed as a matter of course if there are any more than 20 foreign nationals
in the prison, and they should be employed in all cases where the foreign nationals committee
deems that such a post would be of value. The following aims and responsibilities are
recommended as part of any basic job description:
FNOs should be allowed movement between wings wherever possible. If this is not possible,
there should be separate full or half-time orderlies on different wings. They should ideally be
given training in suicide awareness. A training and induction programme, incorporating advice
and guidance work, should be established for them. They will be responsible to the Foreign
Nationals Co-ordinator or, if there is no FNC, to the RRLO, and they should have the
following suggested responsibilities:
1. Distribution of information to foreign national prisoners on the wings (e.g. translated
leaflets, addresses of useful organisations and embassies).
2. Systematically visiting new arrivals to assist with urgent problems (e.g. immigration
referral, language problems).
3. Taking leaflets, publicity about groups and other information to relevant wing offices for
distribution.
4. Helping to represent the views of foreign nationals to staff.
5. Keeping a list of prisoners who are willing to interpret.
6. Learning about the aims of the strategy in order to spread information and raise the
profile of foreign national work around the prison.
7. Helping to identify foreign nationals in need of particular help (e.g. because of language
difficulties, psychological problems, etc.) and encouraging them to seek appropriate help.
8. Attending regular meetings with the FNC / RRLO and other members of the foreign
nationals team as appropriate.
Recommended Guidelines for Individual Establishments 43
9. Assisting the FNC/RRLO to evaluate the foreign nationals strategy.
Foreign National Liaison Officers - Foreign national wing officers should ideally be given
specific time to act as liaison officers. Their tasks might include the following:
1. Act as a source of information for other officers as well as prisoners, taking a lead role
in foreign national issues on each wing.
2. Convene and run foreign national groups.
3. Use Language Line or face-to-face interpreters to interview on the wing foreign
nationals who have language problems and are unable to communicate in groups.
4. Attend quarterly foreign national committee meetings and help to develop all areas of
practice and policy.
5. Attend training and conferences relating to immigration, foreign nationals and
groupwork.
Liaison prison officers are a crucial strand of a sustainable strategy and must always remain a
central objective.
The Foreign National Co-ordinator - The co-ordinators most basic role is to be the
driving force behind the strategy. They should also provide central co-ordination and
communication regarding foreign national issues, helping to prevent duplication of effort and
ensuring that important initiatives are supported and visible. More specifically, they should
manage and convene groups; write and distribute important information; write and review the
strategy in conjunction with the foreign nationals committee; liaise with outside agencies;
support the FNOs and other members of the team; and report to the committee and the
chair on the progress of the strategy.
Implementing this model will require shifts in power - for example, allowing prisoners to chair
groups and to work as orderlies can be challenging to some staff. An awareness of this and a
willingness to provide reassurance and support to staff can be an effective way of assisting the
development of the strategy. The co-ordinator will therefore also have a strategic role,
understanding and responding to problems which can inhibit implementation of the strategy,
both on an individual level (e.g. reassuring officers about the orderly role and encouraging
governors to support the strategy), and on an institutional level (e.g. responding to need by
proposing policy changes and developing strategy).
Specialist Immigration Advice - The immigration system is administratively complex, and
subject to frequent legislative change. There is little prospect of a non-specialist worker being
sufficiently up-to-date and informed to provide the kind of assistance required by prisoners
with immigration problems. Only certain accredited organisations are permitted to give
individual specialist immigration advice. It is therefore crucial for each establishment to make
contact with such an organisation and to establish a formal partnership where numbers make
it necessary.
Evaluation of Strategy - Foreign national prisoners are themselves in the best position to
evaluate the provision of services in an establishment and their views must be incorporated
into the development of strategy through, for example, questionnaires and focus groups.
Training Strategy - Each prison should develop local training programmes, based on the
guidelines issued from the centre, for all staff and orderlies. Training should be jointly
delivered by staff from inside the prison (ideally including uniformed staff) and specialist
external trainers.
T
h
e

F
o
r
e
i
g
n

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

M
o
d
e
l

(
D
i
a
g
r
a
m
)
T
h
e

d
i
a
g
r
a
m

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s

t
h
e

b
a
s
i
c

a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h

a
n
d

t
h
e

m
a
i
n

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

m
o
d
e
l
.
I
t

i
s

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

e
a
c
h

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l

n
e
e
d

t
o

a
d
a
p
t

p
a
r
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

m
o
d
e
l

t
o

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r

l
o
c
a
l

c
i
r
c
u
m
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
.
S
H
A
R
E
D

R
E
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
:
S
t
a
f
f

S
u
p
p
o
r
t
P
u
b
l
i
c
i
s
i
n
g

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g

t
o

P
o
l
i
c
y
C
h
a
i
r

o
f
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
F
o
r
e
i
g
n

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
O
r
d
e
r
l
y
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
W
o
r
k
e
r
(
I
f

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
)
F
o
r
e
i
g
n

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
L
i
a
i
s
o
n
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
F
o
r
e
i
g
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
/
R
R
L
O
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

a
t

S
e
n
i
o
r

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

L
e
v
e
l
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

f
o
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

F
N
C
/
F
N
O
s
/
F
N
L
O
s
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g

N
e
e
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
o

P
r
i
s
o
n
e
r
s
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

P
r
i
s
o
n
e
r
s
R
e
f
e
r
r
a
l
s

t
o
/
f
r
o
m

S
t
a
f
f
P
u
b
l
i
c
i
s
i
n
g
/
C
h
a
i
r
i
n
g

G
r
o
u
p
s
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g

t
o

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

I
m
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n

C
a
s
e
w
o
r
k
G
r
o
u
p
w
o
r
k
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g

t
o

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

F
N
O
s
G
r
o
u
p
w
o
r
k
I
n
f
o
r
m
i
n
g

S
t
a
f
f

a
n
d

P
r
i
s
o
n
e
r
s
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g

t
o

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
D
a
y
-
t
o
-
D
a
y

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
o
-
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
n
g

A
l
l

O
t
h
e
r

P
a
r
t
i
e
s
G
r
o
u
p
w
o
r
k
W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

a
n
d

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
v
i
e
w
W
r
i
t
t
e
n

B
a
s
i
s

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

F
N
O
s
/
F
N
L
O
s
/
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g

t
o

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
C
O
R
E

T
E
A
M
A
c
r
o
n
y
m
s

U
s
e
d
:
F
N
O

=

F
o
r
e
i
g
n

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

O
r
d
e
r
l
y
F
N
C

=

F
o
r
e
i
g
n

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s

C
o
-
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
F
N
L
O

=

F
o
r
e
i
g
n

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s

L
i
a
i
s
o
n

O
f
f
i
c
e
r
R
R
L
O

=

R
a
c
e

R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

L
i
a
i
s
o
n

O
f
f
i
c
e
r
E
M
B E
D D
E
D
I
N
P R
I
S
O N D
I
V E R S
I
T Y S T R A T E
G Y
S U
S
S
T
T
R
A
A
I
T
N
E
A
G
B
Y
L E
45
This report and the project on which it is based were supported by HMP Wandsworth,
Prison Service Headquarters, the Probation Service and the Butler Trust. It found that despite
pockets of good practice, none of the research prisons had policies and procedures that
would allow work with foreign nationals to be sustained over the longer term. Most damaging
was the general absence of strategic direction or prison-wide co-ordination of work. The
clearest conclusion of this study is that, provided there is adequate support at national and
area levels, good practice, as described in chapter five, should be achievable in all Prison
Service establishments
5
.
It is hard to imagine a situation in which it would be inappropriate to implement the main
elements of the model. For example, there are few circumstances in which prisoners could
not be employed as orderlies. Even where such exceptional circumstances exist, possibly in
some high security environments, representatives of foreign national prisoners should still be
able to contribute to provision by attending committees or chairing supervised groups.
Prisoners who want to work constitute an abundant resource, that must not be wasted.
Enabling them to help others and take responsibility for themselves is also a key element in
successful resettlement and therefore in reducing reoffending (e.g. see Levenson and Farrant,
2002).
Since the bulk of this report was completed (in 2003), more attention has been given to
foreign national prisoners by the Prison Service. For example, a national conference for staff
working with this group was convened by Prison Service Headquarters to replace the smaller
scale bi-annual forum convened by the London Probation Area Foreign Nationals Unit. While
such initiatives are welcome, it is highly improbable that they will lead to sustainable local
practice and policy development. The evidence in this report suggests that without more
central guidance on work with foreign national prisoners any progress will be piecemeal.
The main exception to the general lack of guidance is the narrowly focused Prison Service
Order 4630 which provides no guidance on work with foreign national prisoners beyond
their status as potential or actual detainees. What focus there is on foreign national prisoners
is therefore very clearly related to immigration detention and removal. Though important,
immigration status is only one of the many issues that need to be addressed by a coherent
foreign nationals strategy. Consequently, prison staff are still working within a virtual policy
vacuum, which does little to encourage the development of knowledge and good practice and
usually results in poor outcomes as described above.
If the recommendations of this report are followed and guidelines for foreign national work in
prisons are issued, a long-term goal would be to evaluate how far policy and practice
improves wherever they are implemented. Such an evaluation will be the most effective test
of the value of the strategic approach described here.
8. CONCLUDING REMARKS
5 In fact, with adaptations, some of the model could equally apply to immigration removal centres, where detainees experience many of the
same issues revealed in the prison research.
47
Foreign national prisoners population, England and Wales on 31st January 2004
(Prison population and probation statistics section, Home Office)
APPENDIX I
British Foreign Missing Total % Foreign
nationals nationals Nationals
All establishments 63,304 8,937 1,200 73,440 12%
Acklington 824 21 1 846 2%
Albany 484 28 0 512 5%
Altcourse 948 32 14 993 3%
Ashfield 229 4 11 244 2%
Ashwell 497 34 1 532 6%
Askham Grange 126 9 0 135 7%
Aylesbury 289 49 0 337 14%
Bedford 403 68 10 481 14%
Belmarsh 593 279 24 896 31%
Birmingham 1,221 137 13 1,371 10%
Blakenhurst 775 79 14 868 9%
Blantyre House 114 7 2 123 6%
Blundeston 314 121 10 445 27%
Brinsford 439 16 4 458 3%
Bristol 496 70 8 575 12%
Brixton 455 298 32 784 38%
Brockhill 141 5 11 157 3%
Buckley Hall 254 22 0 276 8%
Bullingdon 765 129 4 898 14%
Bullwood Hall 115 28 2 145 19%
Camp Hill 430 120 6 556 22%
Canterbury 261 37 2 300 12%
Cardiff 620 30 6 656 5%
Castington 244 2 1 247 1%
Channings Wood 593 24 1 618 4%
Chelmsford 454 85 16 555 15%
Coldingley 284 94 2 380 25%
Cookham Wood 102 40 0 142 28%
Dartmoor 542 37 1 580 6%
Deerbolt 449 1 0 450 0%
Doncaster 1,069 55 103 1,227 4%
Dorchester 204 16 9 229 7%
Dovegate 699 133 1 833 16%
Dover * 0 327 1 327 100%
Downview 140 58 3 200 29%
Drake Hall 199 80 0 280 29%
Durham 649 31 2 682 5%
East Sutton Park 75 19 2 96 20%
Eastwood Park 254 32 3 289 11%
Edmunds Hill 180 43 1 223 19%
Elmley 744 190 13 947 20%
Erlestoke 352 46 0 398 11%
Everthorpe 440 15 1 456 3%
Exeter 489 23 11 523 4%
Featherstone 559 45 0 603 7%
Feltham 474 185 56 715 26%
Ford 397 77 0 474 16%
Forest Bank 932 58 19 1,008 6%
Foston Hall 189 25 0 213 12%
Frankland 603 39 0 642 6%
Full Sutton 536 51 1 588 9%
Garth 591 38 2 631 6%
Gartree 360 31 1 392 8%
Glen Parva 740 41 4 785 5%
Gloucester 286 7 16 309 2%
Grendon/Spring Hill 495 58 1 554 10%
Guys Marsh 457 80 1 538 15%
Haslar * 0 155 2 157 99%
Haverigg 530 18 0 548 3%
Hewell Grange 163 14 1 178 8%
Highdown 576 147 24 746 20%
Highpoint 560 196 10 766 26%
Hindley 463 11 6 480 2%
Hollesley Bay 233 59 2 294 20%
Holloway 338 109 23 470 23%
Holme House 905 17 2 924 2%
Hull 987 32 8 1,027 3%
Huntercombe 280 50 6 335 15%
Kingston
(Portsmouth) 124 10 0 134 7%
Kirkham 516 26 0 542 5%
Kirklevington 213 8 0 221 4%
Lancaster 221 2 0 223 1%
Lancaster Farms 478 9 11 498 2%
Latchmere House 170 26 0 196 13%
Leeds 1,156 63 8 1,227 5%
Leicester 340 32 4 376 8%
Lewes 408 56 5 468 12%
Leyhill 454 55 0 508 11%
Lincoln 435 19 17 470 4%
Lindholme 572 28 107 707 4%
Littlehey 597 86 4 688 13%
Liverpool 1,345 70 11 1,426 5%
Long Lartin 379 55 0 434 13%
Low Newton 262 6 0 268 2%
Lowdham Grange 419 94 3 516 18%
Maidstone 423 102 10 535 19%
Manchester 1,113 101 90 1,305 8%
Moorland 696 27 1 723 4%
Moorland Open 224 6 0 230 3%
Morton Hall 100 199 1 301 66%
New Hall 370 15 8 393 4%
North Sea Camp 270 14 1 285 5%
Northallerton 196 1 1 197 1%
Appendix I 49
Norwich 605 76 13 695 11%
Nottingham 493 51 6 550 9%
Onley 372 34 10 416 8%
Parc 916 21 6 943 2%
Parkhurst 400 80 4 484 17%
Pentonville 850 304 60 1,214 25%
Portland 367 65 5 437 15%
Preston 649 13 3 665 2%
Ranby 744 39 1 784 5%
Reading 235 19 4 258 7%
Risley 1,006 43 2 1,051 4%
Rochester 221 35 1 257 14%
Rye Hill 516 128 2 646 20%
Send 139 78 0 217 36%
Shepton Mallet 172 11 1 184 6%
Shrewsbury 308 8 2 318 3%
Stafford 605 24 1 630 4%
Standford Hill 338 91 8 438 21%
Stocken 565 48 1 613 8%
Stoke Heath 575 11 5 590 2%
Styal 388 34 12 434 8%
Sudbury 532 40 0 572 7%
Swaleside 556 196 6 758 26%
Swansea 288 6 7 301 2%
Swinfen Hall 281 21 1 303 7%
The Mount 505 223 13 741 30%
The Verne 285 286 3 574 50%
The Weare 316 56 0 371 15%
The Wolds 314 18 0 331 5%
Thorn Cross 230 7 1 238 3%
Usk/Prescoed 369 13 0 382 3%
Wakefield 519 24 2 545 4%
Wandsworth 1,032 319 108 1,459 22%
Warren Hill 171 16 0 187 9%
Wayland 546 135 7 688 20%
Wealstun 545 13 1 559 2%
Wellingborough 466 31 1 498 6%
Werrington 128 2 6 136 1%
Wetherby 266 4 5 275 1%
Whatton 327 18 0 344 5%
Whitemoor 352 61 1 414 15%
Winchester 545 49 11 604 8%
Woodhill 691 92 50 833 11%
Wormwood Scrubs 684 450 20 1,153 39%
Wymott 801 31 2 834 4%
* Dover and Haslar are Prison Service run Immigration Removal Centres.
APPENDIX II: Prison Population by
Nationality - January 2004
British nationals 63,304
Foreign Nationals 8,937
Africa
Algeria 141
Angola 61
Botswana 2
Burundi 4
Cameroon, United Republic 11
Central African Republic 13
Chad 3
Congo 53
Cote D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) 5
Egypt 15
Ethiopia 21
French Guiana 2
Gabon 1
Gambia 24
Ghana 130
Guinea 3
Guinea/Bissau 1
Ivory Coast 14
Kenya 55
Liberia 22
Libya 19
Malawi 10
Mali 1
Mauritania 4
Mauritius 8
Morocco 38
Mozambique 2
Namibia 2
Niger 1
Nigeria 399
Rwanda 10
Sao Tome and Principe 1
Senegal 6
Seychelles 1
Sierre Leone 56
Somalia 220
South Africa 137
Sudan 36
Tanzania 9
Togo 10
Tunisia 10
Uganda 52
Zaire 42
Zambia 12
Zimbabwe 76
Asia
Bangladesh 144
Bhutan 1
Burma 1
China 144
Hong Kong 12
India 231
Indonesia 4
Japan 1
Korea Republic of (Sth) 9
Koren Dem Peoples Rep (Nth) 1
Malaysia 18
Maldives 1
Mongolia 3
Myanmar, Union of (Burma) 1
Nepal 2
Pakistan 367
Phillipines 13
Singapore 5
Sri Lanka 137
Surinam 5
Thailand 4
Vietnam 42
Central/South America
Argentina 6
Belize 1
Bolivia 6
Brazil 27
Chile 13
Columbia 133
Costa Rica 4
Ecuador 9
El Salvador 1
Guatemala 1
Mexico 10
Nicaragua 2
Panama 2
Peru 4
Venezuela 48
Europe
Albania 71
Andorra 1
Armenia 5
Austria 4
Azerbijan 3
Belgium 39
Bosnia-Hercegovina 6
Bulgaria 8
Appendix II 51
Europe cont.
Croatia 6
Cyprus 56
Czechoslovakia 19
Denmark 13
Estonia 4
Finland 4
France 103
Georgia 8
Germany 113
Gibraltar 3
Greece 25
Hungary 15
Irish Republic 658
Italy 129
Kazakhstan 1
Kyrgystan 2
Latvia 15
Lithuania 52
Macedonia 3
Malta 10
Moldova 33
Netherlands 220
Norway 2
Poland 50
Portugal 125
Romania 95
Serbia 8
Slovakia 7
Slovenia 2
Spain 95
Sweden 8
Switzerland 7
Turkey 252
Russia 92
Uzbekistan 1
Yugoslavia 81
Middle East
Afghanistan 61
Bahrain 1
Iran 87
Iraq 156
Israel 14
Jordan 7
Middle East cont.
Kuwait 7
Lebanon 24
Saudi Arabia 9
Syrian Arab Republic 6
United Arab Emirates 7
Yemen Arab Republic (North) 6
Yemen Peoples Dem Rep (Sth) 2
North America
Canada 26
United States of America 100
Oceania
Australia 26
Fiji 3
French Southern Territories 1
Kiribati 1
New Zealand 9
Papua New Guinea 1
Other
14
West Indies
Anguilla 1
Aruba 3
Bahamas 4
Barbados 30
Bermuda 3
Cuba 5
Dominica 7
Dominican Republic 8
Grenada 13
Guyana 20
Haiti 2
Jamaica 2,493
Montserrat 13
Netherlands Antilles 14
Netherlands Antilles 2
St Christopher & Nevis 1
St Kitts and Nevis 7
St Lucia 17
St Vincent & The Grenadines 8
Trinidad and Tobago 115
Virgin Islands 2
Not known
1,200
Source: Prison Population and Probation Statistics section, RDS
APPENDIX III:
Information for Foreign Nationals
Governors Statement - Prison can be a confusing and frightening place, especially if you have
not experienced anything like it before. You should always expect to be treated with respect
and humanity, and discrimination on grounds such as nationality, ethnicity or language is completely
unacceptable. Similarly, we expect you to behave responsibly while you are here. This leaflet is
intended to help you understand prison routines and rules, and to let you know about sources
of help and advice. I hope it contributes to your stay being safe, constructive and healthy.
Governor
HELP FOR FOREIGN NATIONALS
Foreign Nationals Groups - Information and support groups for foreign nationals (defined as
anyone who is not a British citizen) take place in both the main part of the prison and the
Vulnerable Prisoners Unit. Other groups, e.g. for people who speak the same language, are also
run regularly. All the groups are run by any combination of the foreign nationals co-ordinator
in the probation unit, specialist foreign national workers from outside agencies and specially
trained prison officers. Each wing has at least one foreign national liaison prison officer. In the
groups you can:
Obtain advice on immigration problems, such as possible deportation.
Meet people who speak your language.
Speak to other people in the prison, such as governors or education staff.
Speak to people from outside agencies, such as immigration law firms or voluntary
organisations which help foreign nationals in prisons.
Listen to talks by other prisoners on, for example, their countries and cultures. You can
also give talks yourself.
If you want to come to the group simply write a general application to the foreign nationals co-
ordinator or ask your landing officer to fill in a referral form.
What If I Cannot Speak English? Wandsworth makes good use of interpreters and a telephone
interpreting service called Language Line. Staff can speak to you quickly and easily using this
service in almost any part of the prison.
Even if you cannot speak English, you should still come to the group at least once. A member
of staff could arrange to speak to you using an interpreter. There is always time at the end of
the group to speak to one of the staff.
Education - The education department runs regular courses on a variety of subjects. One of
these is for people who want to learn English. These are called ESOL (English for Speakers of
Other Languages) classes. Send an application to the education department if you want to
attend.
Other Information in Your Language - The Prisoners Information Book and a book about
visiting and keeping in touch are published in most languages and copies are always available in
the library. The library also has a number of books (fiction and non-fiction), as well as other
useful information in a wide range of languages. You will be able to use the library once a week.
Information leaflet to be given out at reception/induction Spring 2000 English
Apendix III 53
STAYING IN TOUCH
Visits - Visiting Orders (called VOs) are issued to sentenced prisoners every two weeks. You
should write the names and addresses of the people you want to visit on them and then post
the order to them. Instructions for the visitor are written on the VO. Remand prisoners do not
receive VOs, and are allowed four visits a week. Your visitor should bring some form of identity,
such as a passport, and proof of address.
Telephone Calls - We realise that many foreign nationals may be very far from their families
and friends. In addition to any calls you pay for, you are therefore able to make a maximum of
one free ten minute telephone call to your home country each month in exchange for one visit.
Please write an application to your landing officer asking for a foreign nationals phone call and
attach a VO if you have one.
You can buy phone cards from the Canteen. Social calls can be made during association time
only and may be monitored. To make a call to your lawyer, please write his or her name and
number on an application and hand it to your landing officer.
Letters - You are allowed one ordinary letter per week to send anywhere in the UK. You can
exchange two ordinary letters for one international airmail letter. You can also exchange your
free phone call for two airmail letters. Outgoing post should be handed in (unsealed) with
applications before breakfast. You should receive any incoming post on the day it arrives.
APPLICATIONS
If you wish to contact any department in the prison, have a problem with anything or any questions,
you can complete an application. These are kept near your landing office. Fill them in,
remembering to include your name, prison number and cell number, and hand them in before
breakfast. You will receive a slip confirming that you have handed the application in, which can
also help to identify the officer who has dealt with it. The following are examples of the applications
you might make:
To apply for work fill in the RMU form.
To see a doctor, dentist or optician, complete the Medical Application form. If you need
more urgent medical attention, tell your landing officer who will arrange for you to be seen
as an emergency. To obtain medication for minor ailments such as a headache, cold, etc., you
can arrange to go special sick at mealtimes, which means that you will see a nurse.
To obtain details of religious services and to see a representative of your religion, send
a General Application to the Chaplaincy.
To attend ESOL classes or for any other education, send a General Application to Education.
If you want to change your diet, e.g. to vegan or pork free, fill in a General Application
and hand it to the officer supervising the hotplate (the place where meals are served)
at mealtime.
To obtain help with anything to do with legal services, e.g. if you want to appeal against
your sentence or conviction or have outstanding fines, send a General Application to
Legal Aid.
LANDING RULES
1. Treat all other prisoners and staff with respect.
2. Only use the cell bell for emergencies.
3. You can only smoke in your cell and the exercise yard.
4. Do not run, shout, eat or drink on the landings.
5. If you need to leave the landing, ask permission from an officer.
6. Be correctly dressed when leaving your cell: tuck your shirt into your trousers, wear
socks and underpants at all times and do not wear slippers on the landing.
7. You are responsible for keeping your cell tidy. You should not stick pictures on the walls.
Use the notice boards provided.
8. Do not carry bags over your shoulder or put your hand in your pockets.
9. Get out of bed and get fully dressed when unlocked for breakfast. Do not go back to
bed until 5.30pm at the earliest.
10. Do not lend property (e.g. phone cards, radios) to or borrow from another prisoner.
11. Do not store excess clothes or belongings. Put excess clothes in the laundry bag on the
wing landing.
12. At meal times, take only the diet you have requested.
OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Food and Exercise - You will receive three meals a day. If you have special dietary needs, e.g.
vegan, halal, kosher, etc., they will be met. You will be able to exercise in the open air every
day unless there are exceptional circumstances such as very poor weather.
Canteen - You can buy basic items such as phone cards and tobacco through the canteen.
How much you can spend in the canteen depends on your privilege level (see below).
Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme - This scheme rewards prisoners for good
behaviour. There are three privilege levels: basic, standard and enhanced. The amount of
money you can spend in the canteen and the number of visits you are allowed, depend on
your privilege level. When you first arrive, you will automatically be on the standard level.You
will progress to enhanced or be dropped to basic depending on how you behave.
Help with Drug Problems - If you have a drug or alcohol problem and want help, write a
general application to the Substance Misuse Throughcare Co-ordinator. Someone will then
visit you to advise on rehabilitation courses or other help.
Drug Testing - While you are in prison, you may at any time be asked to provide a sample of
urine for drug testing. If you test positive, you may be charged under prison rules and be
punished, usually with extra days added to your sentence.
HELP WITH OTHER PROBLEMS
What If I am Feeling Depressed or Suicidal? If you are feeling depressed, please let
someone know. The Samaritans are an independent agency and will offer you support and
help. The Listeners are prisoners trained by the Samaritans and will visit you if you need
someone to talk to. Your landing officer can put you in touch with a listener, and you can fill in
Apendix III 55
a general application to see the Samaritans. If you think that other prisoners may harm
themselves or need support please tell your landing officer so that help can be given.
What If I Have a Request or Complaint Which Has Not Been Resolved on the Wing?
If you have a serious complaint, you can ask for a Request & Complaint form which goes to
the Governor, Area Manager or Prison Service Headquarters. If you are not satisfied, you can
write to the independent Prison Ombudsman, whose address can be obtained from posters
around the prison. You can also make an application to see someone from the Board of
Visitors, an independent body of people which oversees the correct running of the prison. If
your complaint relates to racist treatment, you can also make an application to see the
prisons Race Relations Liaison Officer.
What If I Am Being Bullied? Bullying will not be tolerated in this prison. If you are being
bullied or know of anyone else who is being bullied, please tell your landing officer so that
action can be taken against the perpetrator.
56
How to Use Language Line
APPENDIX IV
The Language Line interpreting service can be used to communicate with prisoners from
any telephone which has an outside connection. Ideally, two phones should be connected
to the same line to allow simultaneous translation, but this is not essential.
1. Establish exactly which language the prisoner speaks. You may find the language
identification card helpful.
2. Call the language line number 020 7713 0090 and have the ID number ready - it is
available from all wing senior and principal officers.
3. You will be asked to state the id number and the language required. In most instances,
the operator will connect you to an interpreter almost immediately.
PLEASE NOTE:
You should speak to the prisoner directly and allow the interpreter to give literal
translations. For example, do not say: Can you ask him if he has immigration problems?
but: Do you have an immigration problem?
Language line is intended for short sessions. If you need to speak for more than 30
minutes and the situation is not an emergency, you should book an interpreter - a list
of accredited interpreters can be obtained from the foreign nationals co-ordinator in
the probation unit.
HMP WANDSWORTH FOREIGN NATIONALS
THROUGHCARE COMMITTEE
57
Foreign National Orderly Assessment Sheet
Date of first contact:
Name:..NumberLocation:...Nationality
1. Immigration problem? Yes / No
If yes, what are the details?
2. Status/Category and Length of Remand/Sentence/Detention?
3. Wants to attend ESOL / other education? Yes / No
4. What languages spoken?
5. Has applied for work? Yes / No
6. Has applied for extra spending money for phone cards? Yes / No
7. Has received induction? Yes / No
8. Needs to come to group? Yes / No
If so, when?
9. Needs referral to other agencies? Yes / No
Which ones has he been referred to?
10. Has received foreign national leaflet in own language? Yes / No
11. Vulnerable? Yes / No
If so, why and what support needs?
12. Other issues / remarks
APPENDIX V
HMP WANDSWORTH FOREIGN NATIONALS
THROUGHCARE COMMITTEE
REFERENCES
Association of Chief Officers of Probation (1990) Foreign Prisoners in British Penal
Institutions. London: ACOP.
Bhui, Hindpal Singh (2004) The Resettlement Needs of Foreign National Offenders, in
Criminal Justice Matters 56, pp. 36-37 and p. 44.
Bhui, Hindpal Singh (2003) Foreign Nationals in Prisons, Guardian Society website:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/publicvoices/prisons/
Bhui, Hindpal Singh (1995) Foreign National Prisoner Survey, in Probation Journal 45 (2).
Cheney, Deborah (1993) Into the Dark Tunnel: Foreign Prisoners in the British Prison System.
London: Prison Reform Trust.
Commission for Racial Equality (2003a) The Murder of Zahid Mubarek: A Formal
Investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality into HM Prison Service of England and Wales.
Part 1. London: CRE.
Commission for Racial Equality (2003b) A Formal Investigation by the Commission for
Racial Equality into HM Prison Service of England and Wales. Part 2: Race Equality in Prisons.
London: CRE.
CVS Consultants and Migrant and Refugee Communities Forum (1999)
A Shattered World: The Mental Health Needs of Refugees and Newly Arrived Communities.
London: CVS Consultants.
Ellis, Rachael (1998) Asylum-Seekers and Immigration Act Prisoners - The Practice of
Detention. London: Prison Reform Trust.
Green, Penny (1991) Drug Couriers. London: Howard League for Penal Reform.
Green, Penny (1998) Drugs, Trafficking and Criminal Policy - the Scapegoat Policy. Winchester:
Waterside Press.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (1995) Report of an Announced Short Inspection of HM
Holding Centre Haslar. London: Home Office.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (1996) Report of a Full Inspection of HM Prison and
Detainee Centre Rochester. London: Home Office.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (1997) Report of an Unannounced Inspection of HM Prison
Holloway. London: Home Office.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (1999) Report of an Unannounced Inspection Of HM
Prison Wandsworth. London: Home Office.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (2001) Report of an Unannounced Follow-up Inspection of
HM Prison The Weare. London: Home Office.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (2001a) Report of an Unannounced Inspection Of HM
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (2001b) Report of an Unannounced Inspection Of HM
Prison Wormwood Scrubs. London: Home Office.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (2002a) Report of an Unannounced Follow-up Inspection of
HM Prison Birmingham. London: Home Office.
References 59
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (2002b) Report of an Unannounced Follow-up Inspection
of HM Prison Blakenhurst. London: Home Office.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (2003) Report of an Unannounced Follow-up Inspection of
HM Prison The Mount. London: Home Office.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (2003a) Report of an Unannounced Follow-up Inspection of
HM Prison Kingston. London: Home Office.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (2003b) Report of an Unannounced Follow-up Inspection
of HM Prison Parc. London: Home Office.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (2003c) Report of an Unannounced Follow-up Inspection of
HM Prison Littlehey. London: Home Office.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (2003d) Report of an Unannounced Inspection Of HM
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (2003e) Report on a Full Announced Inspection of HM
Prison Cardiff. London: Home Office.
HM Prison Service (1999) Report of a Review of Principles, Policies and Procedures on
Mothers and Babies/Children in Prison. London: Womens Policy Group, HM Prison Service.
Home Office (2002) A Review of Training in Racism Awareness and Valuing Cultural Diversity,
RDS On-line report 09.02.
Howard League (1994) Families Matter. London: Howard League for Penal Reform.
Levenson, J. and Farrant, F. (2002) Unlocking Potential: Active Citizenship and
Volunteering by Prisoners, in Probation Journal 49 (3), pp. 195-204.
Paton, J. and Jenkins, R. (eds) (2002) Mental Health Primary Care in Prison. London: Royal
Society of Medicine. (For on-line version, see: www.prisonmentalhealth.org)
Pourgourides, C.K et al (1996) A Second Exile: The Mental Health Implications of Detention
of Asylum Seekers in the UK. University of Birmingham/Cadbury Trust.
Prison Reform Trust/Prison Service (1994) Foreign Prisoners Resource Pack
6
.
Richards, M., McWilliams, B., Batten, N., Cameron, C. and Cutler, J. (1995)
Foreign Nationals in English Prisons: I. Family Ties and Their Maintenance, in Howard Journal
34 (2), pp.158-175.
Richards, M., McWilliams, B., Batten, N., Cameron, C. and Cutler, J. (1995a)
Foreign Nationals in English Prisons: II. Some Policy Issues, in Howard Journal 34 (3), pp.195-207.
Ruthven, D. and Seward, E. (2002) Restricted Access: Legal Information for Remand
Prisoners. London: Prison Reform Trust.
Solomon, E. and Edgar, K. (2003) Having their Say: The Work of Prisoner Councils. London:
Prison Reform Trust.
Tarzi, A. and Hedges, J. (1990) A Prison Within a Prison. Inner London Probation Service.
Tarzi, A. and Hedges, J. (1993) A Prison Within a Prison - Two Years On: An Overview. Inner
London Probation Service.
Wilson, D. (2004) Keeping Quiet or Going Nuts: Strategies Used by Young Black Men in
Custody, in Howard Journal 43 (3), pp. 317-330.
6 The resource pack has now been updated and is due to be issued in two distinct parts: one section will be for staff and one will be for
prisoners. The prisoner section will be translated into a number of languages.
Abernethy, Rosemary and Hammond, Nick (1999) Working with Offenders from
Abroad: Probation Practice Issues. Middlesex Probation Service.
Abernethy, Rosemary and Hammond, Nick (1992) Foreign National Drug Couriers: a
Role for the Probation Service. Middlesex Probation Service.
Ball, Lucy and Griffin, Sally (2000) Refugee, Asylum Seeker and Foreign National Offenders:
Research and Development Project. London Offender Employment Network.
Cheney, Deborah (1994) Policy and Practice in Work with Foreign Nationals, in Probation
Journal, Vol. 41 (4).
European Co-ordinated Resettlement Unit (2000) Foreign National Prisoners
Information Handbook and Good Practice Guide. ECRU. (ECRU has recently disbanded)
Hales, Liz (1996) Refugees and Criminal Justice. Cropwood Occasional Paper 21,
Cambridge Institute of Criminology.
Harper, Rosalyn and Murphy, Rachel (1999) Drug Smuggling: an Analysis of the Traffickers
1991-1997. Middlesex Probation Service.
Prison Reform Trust (2004) Forgotten Prisoners The Plight of Foreeign National Prisoners in
England and Wales.
SUGGESTED FURTHER READING

Going The Distance - Foreign National Prisoners

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Going The Distance - Foreign National Prisoners

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CONTENTS

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen